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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination. Claims 1-11 have been elected without traverse. Claims 12-13, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 26, and 30 are withdrawn.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Acoustic Output Device with First and Second Diaphragms Vibrating in Opposite Phase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1, 3-4, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo Korean Publication No. 10-2018-0107601 (from IDS).
Referring to claim 1, Yoo teaches an acoustic output device (Fig. 3), comprising:
a first acoustic assembly, wherein the first acoustic assembly includes a first diaphragm, and the first diaphragm is configured to vibrate to produce a first sound (Fig. 3: first diaphragm 71 vibrates to produce first sound); and
a second acoustic assembly, wherein the second acoustic assembly includes a second diaphragm, and the second diaphragm is configured to vibrate to produce a second sound (Fig. 3: second diaphragm 81 vibrates to produce second sound), wherein
at least a portion of the second diaphragm is disposed around the first diaphragm (Figs. 2-3: second diaphragm 81 around first diaphragm 71); and
in a target frequency range, a vibration phase of the first diaphragm is opposite to a vibration phase of the second diaphragm, and the second sound interferes with the first sound (Page 6, Para 4: “among the sounds output through the first diaphragm 71, the sound diffused toward the radially outer side of the first diaphragm 71 is interfered by the sound of the opposite phase output through the second diaphragm 81”) to produce a directional acoustic field pointing to a target direction (Page 6, Para 4: “may be a directional speaker capable of changing a direction to a specific area”).
Referring to claim 3, Yoo teaches the first diaphragm is a circular diaphragm, the second diaphragm is an annular diaphragm around the circular diaphragm, and the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm are coaxially arranged (Fig. 2: annular second diaphragm 81 coaxially arranged around circular first diaphragm 71).
Referring to claim 4, Yoo teaches the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm are disposed side-by-side, and a vibration direction of the second diaphragm is parallel to a vibration direction of the first diaphragm (Fig. 3: first diaphragm 71 and second diaphragm 81 are arranged side by side and vibrations of each diaphragm are parallel to one another; Page 5, Para 6: “The voice coil 73 vibrates in the vertical direction”; Page 6, Para 3: “The voice coil 74 vibrates in the vertical direction”).
Referring to claim 8, Yoo teaches the second diaphragm is disposed obliquely relative to the first diaphragm (Fig. 3: inner side of second diaphragm 81 disposed obliquely relative to outer side of first diaphragm 71), and an angle between a vibration direction of the second diaphragm and a vibration direction of the first diaphragm is in a range of 0°-45° (Page 5, Para 6: “The voice coil 73 vibrates in the vertical direction”; Page 6, Para 3: “The voice coil 74 vibrates in the vertical direction” – Examiner notes that the angle between vibration directions will be 0).
Referring to claim 9, Yoo teaches along the vibration direction of the first diaphragm, an outer edge of the second diaphragm is farther away from the first diaphragm than an inner edge of the second diaphragm (Fig. 3: along the vertical vibration direction, an upper side of an outer edge of diaphragm 81 is farther away from a lower side of diaphragm 71 than a lower side of an inner edge of diaphragm 81).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada US Patent No. 4938074.
Referring to claim 11, Yoo does not specify vibration amplitudes, but Tada teaches a ratio between a vibration amplitude of the first diaphragm and a vibration amplitude of the second diaphragm is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 (Column 4, Lines 36-39: “When the detector 8 is vibrated in such a direction that the diaphragms 87a and 87b are deformable, the diaphragms are deformed by the same quantity”). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of deforming diaphragms, therefore it would have been obvious to try vibrating two diaphragms at the same amplitude, as taught in Tada, as opposed to vibrating at different amplitudes in the device of Yoo because all deformations will allow for setups of multiple vibrating diaphragms to project sound.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9 above, and further in view of Sagren US Publication No. 20020094097.
Referring to claim 5, Yoo does not teach a larger outer diaphragm, but Sagren teaches a ratio between an outer diameter of the second diaphragm and a diameter of the first diaphragm is not less than 2 (Fig. 1d: ratio between outer diameter of diaphragms 165 and 191 is not less than 2). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of sizing diaphragms, therefore it would have been obvious to try using a larger outer diaphragm, as taught in Sagren, as opposed to using a same size or smaller outer diaphragm, as taught in Yoo, because all setups allow for coaxial setups of vibrating diaphragms to project sound.
Referring to claim 6, Yoo does not teach a larger outer diaphragm, but Sagren teaches a ratio between an annular width of the second diaphragm and a radius of the first diaphragm is not less than 2 (Fig. 1d: ratio between annular width of diaphragm 165 and radius of diaphragm 191 is not less than 2). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of sizing diaphragms, therefore it would have been obvious to try using a larger outer diaphragm, as taught in Sagren, as opposed to using a same size or smaller outer diaphragm, as taught in Yoo, because all setups allow for coaxial setups of vibrating diaphragms to project sound.
Referring to claim 7, Yoo does not teach a larger outer diaphragm, but Sagren teaches a ratio between an area of the second diaphragm and an area of the first diaphragm is not less than 4 (Fig. 1d: ratio between areas of diaphragms 165 and 191 is not less than 4). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of sizing diaphragms, therefore it would have been obvious to try using a larger outer diaphragm, as taught in Sagren, as opposed to using a same size or smaller outer diaphragm, as taught in Yoo, because all setups allow for coaxial setups of vibrating diaphragms to project sound.
Referring to claim 10, Yoo does not teach a larger outer diaphragm, but Sagren teaches a ratio between an area of the second diaphragm and an area of the first diaphragm is not less than 1 (Fig. 1d: ratio between areas of diaphragms 165 and 191 is not less than 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of sizing diaphragms, therefore it would have been obvious to try using a larger outer diaphragm, as taught in Sagren, as opposed to using a same size or smaller outer diaphragm, as taught in Yoo, because all setups allow for coaxial setups of vibrating diaphragms to project sound.
Referring to claim 11, Yoo does not teach a larger outer diaphragm, but Sagren teaches a ratio between an outer diameter of the second diaphragm and a diameter of the first diaphragm is not less than 1 (Fig. 1d: ratio between outer diameter of diaphragm 165 and diameter of diaphragm 191 is not less than 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of sizing diaphragms, therefore it would have been obvious to try using a larger outer diaphragm, as taught in Sagren, as opposed to using a same size or smaller outer diaphragm, as taught in Yoo, because all setups allow for coaxial setups of vibrating diaphragms to project sound.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights