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 § 103
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 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 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakuta (2020/0342844) in view of McKnight (2013/0087407).
With respect to claim 1, Hakuta teaches a sound absorption (Figures 1-3 and 29, #10) apparatus comprising: a front plate (14) comprising a sound hole (14a); a back plate (Figures 1-3, #22 or Figure 29, bottom plate of frame portion #32) facing the front plate (14); a diaphragm (Figures 1-3, #12 or Figure 29, #13, excluding the outer perimeter portion that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29, which perimeter portion is a support/mounting portion) provided between the front plate (14) and the back plate (Figures 1-3, #22 or Figure 29, bottom plate of frame portion #32); a supporting member (defined by outer perimeter of diaphragm #12/13 that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29) configured to support the diaphragm, the supporting member (defined by outer perimeter of diaphragm #12/13 that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29) including a first frame attached to the diaphragm (frame defined by aforementioned outer perimeter of the diaphragm 12/13); a second frame (Figures 1-3, #19 or Figure 29, #19/18) configured to form a first space (Figure 3, #26; Figure 29, #26/24) between the front plate (14) and the diaphragm (12 or 13); and a third frame (Figures 1-3, #18 or Figure 29, #32) configured to form a second space (Figure 3, #24; Figure 29, #34) between the back plate (Figures 1-3, #22 or Figure 29, bottom plate of frame portion #32) and the diaphragm (12 or 13), wherein the supporting member (defined by outer perimeter of diaphragm #12/13 that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29) is arranged between the second frame (Figures 1-3, #19 or Figure 29, #19/18) and the third frame (Figures 1-3, #18 or Figure 29, #32).
Hakuta fails to teach the supporting member including a first member located inside the first frame and attached to the diaphragm, and a connecting member connecting the first frame and the first member, and wherein the first frame of the supporting member is arranged between the second frame and the third frame.
McKnight teaches a similar sound absorption structure having a similar tunable vibrating diaphragm member (Figure 7a, #46), including a supporting member (45/55/50/100) configured to support the diaphragm (46), the supporting member (45/55/50/100) including a first frame (45/55) attached to the diaphragm (46), a first member (50) located inside the first frame (45/55) and attached to the diaphragm (46), and a connecting member (100) connecting the first frame (45/55) and the first member (50), and when combined, wherein the first frame (45/55) of the supporting member (45/55/50/100) is arranged between the second frame (of Hakuta, Figures 1-3, #19 or Figure 29, #19/18) and the third frame (of Hakuta, Figures 1-3, #18 or Figure 29, #32).
It is noted that Hakuta tunes the frequency response of the diaphragm by adjusting “size, a thickness, a hardness, or density of the membrane-like member 12 ([0207]),” and McKnight alternatively tunes the diaphragm by providing a hinge structure #55, mass #50 and stiffening ribs #100 on the diaphragm, and adjusting various parameters/characteristics of components #55/50/100 ([0040], [0042], [0045]). Because Hakuta and McKnight teach alternative ways to tune the diaphragm/membrane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Hakuta, with the apparatus of McKnight so as to provide simple substitution of one known diaphragm tuning method/structure for another, to provide the predictable result of the structure of McKnight being suitable for and capable of tuning the diaphragm of Hakuta to a desirable frequency range. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 2, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the connecting member (McKnight, 100) is configured to support the first member (McKnight, 50) so as to vibrate with respect to the first frame (McKnight, 45/55), and sound entering the first space through the sound hole (Hakuta, #14a) is reduced by using a first sound absorption characteristic obtained by vibration of the diaphragm (Hakuta, #12 when combined with Knight, #46) in accordance with vibration of the first member (McKnight, 50).
With respect to claim 3, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein a mass of the first member (McKnight, 50) is adjustable in order to adjust a natural frequency of the first sound absorption characteristic ([0042]-[0045]).
With respect to claim 4, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the first frame (McKnight, 45/55) and the first member (McKnight, 50) are attached to a first portion (defined by upper surface in Figure 7a) of the diaphragm (46), and sound that enters the first space (defined by Hakuta, frame #19) through the sound hole (Hakuta, frame #14a) is reduced by using a second sound absorption characteristic obtained by vibration of a second portion of the diaphragm (defined by portions of diaphragm other than that having mass #50, such as portion having #55 or #100) different from the first portion.
With respect to claim 5, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the connecting member (McKnight, 100) includes a beam member having a variable shape depending one design requirements ([0046]), including a first end and a second end, the first end of the beam member is connected to the first frame (McKnight, 45/55), and the second end of the beam member is connected to the first member (McKnight, 50).
Hakuta and McKnight fail to explicitly teach wherein the connecting member is a linear beam member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the connecting member is a linear beam member, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by McKnight. In this case, McKnight teaches that the shape of connecting member #100 may be “a sine wave (FIG. 7b), triangular shape (FIG. 7c), square shape (FIG. 7d) or any other shape depending on the design requirements for stiffness and manufacturability (0046).” One of ordinary skill would recognize a linear shape as an obvious matter of design choice based on the teachings of McKnight.
With respect to claim 8, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the connecting member (McKnight, 100) is attached to the diaphragm (McKnight, #46, when combined) ([0046]).
With respect to claim 9, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the supporting member (McKnight, 45/55/50/100) has a first surface (bottom surface) and a second surface (upper surface) opposite to the first surface, and the diaphragm includes a first diaphragm (Hakuta, Figure 29, #13 when combined with McKnight, #46) provided on the first surface side of the supporting member (McKnight, 45/55/50/100, when attached to diaphragm #13 of Hakuta) and a second diaphragm (Hakuta, Figure 29, #12) provided on the second surface side of the supporting member (McKnight, 45/55/50/100, when attached to diaphragm #13 of Hakuta).
With respect to claim 10, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein it is obvious that the first frame (McKnight, 45/55), the first member (McKnight, 50), and the connecting member (McKnight, 100) are integrally molded ([0035], [0046], [0049]), as each structure can be integrated or formed as the same material with the diaphragm. The components being formed of the same material and/or integrated is considered to constitute being “integrally molded.”
With respect to claim 11, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the second frame (Hakuta, #19) and the third frame (Hakuta, #18) are configured to adjust a distance between a combination of the diaphragm (Hakuta, #12) and the supporting member (McKnight, 45/55/50/100, when combined) and the front plate (14) ([0258]).
With respect to claim 12, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the third frame (18) and the back plate (22) are configured to adjust a distance between a combination of the diaphragm (Hakuta, #12) and the supporting member (McKnight, 45/55/50/100, when combined) and the back plate (22).
With respect to claim 13, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the diaphragm (Hakuta, Figures 1-3, #12 or Figure 29, #13, excluding the outer perimeter portion that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29, which perimeter portion is a support/mounting portion) is connected to the third frame (Hakuta, Figures 1-3, #18 or Figure 29, #32) via the first frame of the supporting member (Hakuta, defined by outer perimeter of diaphragm #12/13 that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29, when combined with McKnight first frame #45/55 of the supporting member #45/55/50/100).
With respect to claim 14, Hakuta and McKnight teach wherein the diaphragm (Hakuta, Figures 1-3, #12 or Figure 29, #13, excluding the outer perimeter portion that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29, which perimeter portion is a support/mounting portion) is connected to the second frame (Hakuta, Figures 1-3, #19 or Figure 29, #19/18) via the first frame of the supporting member (Hakuta, defined by outer perimeter of diaphragm #12/13 that is sandwiched between members 18/19 in Figures 1-3 or 18/32 in Figure 29, when combined with McKnight first frame #45/55 of the supporting member #45/55/50/100).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner still considers Hakuta and McKnight to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
It is noted that the above rejection includes a new interpretation of the supporting member/first frame in both the Hakuta and McKnight references in response to the claim amendments. The new grounds of rejection are considered to be fully responsive to arguments presented against the rejection of claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, as discuses above, Hakuta teaches that the outer perimeter of the diaphragm that is sandwiched between the first a second frames, acts as a supporting member first frame. As Applicant points out, in McKnight, the perimeter portion #45 of the diagram similarly attaches to an external frame (similar to the second/third frame members 1#8 and 19 or #18/19 and 32, which support diaphragm #12/13 of Hakuta). In both Hakuta and McKnight, the outer perimeter of the diaphragm acts as a supporting first frame to attach the diaphragm to an external frame or frames.
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 JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837