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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Note claim 4.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “vibration means” and “holding means” in claims 7-11. Claims 7-11 further define the vibration means to include sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function. Claims 7-11 introduce the holding means with sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “section-type vibration plates”. It is not clear what the addition of the word “-type” is intended to convey. Note MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Claims 7-11 each recite “two or more inserts”. The disclosure discusses inserts 42 formed to penetrate the vibration frame 20 and the figures appear to show openings 53 in the frame. It is not clear what is encompassed by the term “insert” as the inserts shown appear only to be openings whereas the term insert would normally describe an element or component that is inserted into another element or component.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US# 2024/0156205).
Lee et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; a vibration module 600 equipped with section-type vibration plates 620 using magnetic force, the vibration module comprising: a case 610 configured such that top and bottom housings are coupled to each other to form an accommodation portion therein; a vibration frame interposed between the top and bottom housings of the case; a first vibration plate 620 configured such that one end thereof is disposed in the accommodation portion of the case and a remaining end thereof is connected to the vibration frame; a second vibration plate 620 configured such that one end thereof is placed in the accommodation portion of the case and a remaining end thereof is connected to the vibration frame, disposed in parallel with the first vibration plate, and provided with a structure facing the first vibration plate; and a vibration means 611/612/621/622 configured to vibrate the first and second vibration plates up and down by means of magnetic force [0075]. Note the annotated figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
870
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, each of the first and second vibration plates comprises: a support connected to the vibration frame; a pair of branches branched off from an end of the support; and a pair of disks formed at ends of the respective branches.
PNG
media_image2.png
575
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, each of the branches is formed in a multi-bending structure in which a bending direction is changed more than n times (where n is an integer of two or more). See the figure above.
Regarding claim 4, each of the disks has a circular shape when viewed from a top.
Regarding claim 5, a U-shaped recess recessed inward is formed in a connection portion between each of the branches and a corresponding one of the disks.
PNG
media_image3.png
463
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, a pair of U-shaped neck depressions recessed in opposite directions are formed in a connection portion between the vibration frame and the support of each of the first and second vibration plates.
PNG
media_image4.png
482
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2021-0014550.
KR ‘550 discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; a vibration module equipped with section-type vibration plates using magnetic force, the vibration module comprising: a case configured such that top and bottom housings are coupled to each other to form an accommodation portion therein; a vibration frame interposed between the top and bottom housings of the case; a first vibration plate configured such that one end thereof is disposed in the accommodation portion of the case and a remaining end thereof is connected to the vibration frame; a second vibration plate configured such that one end thereof is placed in the accommodation portion of the case and a remaining end thereof is connected to the vibration frame, disposed in parallel with the first vibration plate, and provided with a structure facing the first vibration plate; and a vibration means configured to vibrate the first and second vibration plates up and down by means of magnetic force. Note the annotated figures below.
PNG
media_image5.png
678
614
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, each of the first and second vibration plates comprises: a support connected to the vibration frame; a pair of branches branched off from an end of the support; and a pair of disks formed at ends of the respective branches.
PNG
media_image6.png
678
648
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US# 2024/0156205) in view of KR 10-2345807.
Lee et al further discloses four floating magnets provided on the respective disks of the first and second vibration plates; four top magnets 611 provided on the top housing of the case 610 and configured to generate repulsive force for the respective floating magnets; and four bottom magnets 612 provided on the bottom housing of the case 610 and configured to generate repulsive force for the respective floating magnets; and the vibration module further comprises a holding means for fixing the vibration frame to the case. Lee et al lack the specific details of the holding means comprising: a space formed to be depressed into an end of one of the top and bottom housings in the case and configured such that the vibration frame is inserted and seated therein; two or more posts formed to protrude from a bottom of the space; and two or more inserts formed to penetrate the vibration frame and fitted into the respective posts. KR 10-2345807 disclose a similar device and further teach a holding means comprising: a space formed to be depressed 223 into an end of one of a top and bottom 220 housings in the case and configured such that a vibration frame is inserted and seated therein; two or more posts 222’ formed to protrude from a bottom of the space; and two or more inserts 232/232’ formed to penetrate the vibration frame and fitted into the respective posts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the holding means taught by KR ‘807 in the device of Lee et al to provide a secure mounting for the vibration frame, thereby ensuring durability of the device.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2021-0014550 in view of KR 10-2345807.
KR ‘550 further discloses four floating magnets provided on the respective disks of the first and second vibration plates; four top magnets 31 provided on the top housing of the case 42 and configured to generate repulsive force for the respective floating magnets; and four bottom magnets 32 provided on the bottom housing of the case 41 and configured to generate repulsive force for the respective floating magnets; and the vibration module further comprises a holding means for fixing the vibration frame to the case. KR ‘550 lack the specific details of the holding means comprising: a space formed to be depressed into an end of one of the top and bottom housings in the case and configured such that the vibration frame is inserted and seated therein; two or more posts formed to protrude from a bottom of the space; and two or more inserts formed to penetrate the vibration frame and fitted into the respective posts. KR 10-2345807 disclose a similar device and further teach a holding means comprising: a space formed to be depressed 223 into an end of one of a top and bottom 220 housings in the case and configured such that a vibration frame is inserted and seated therein; two or more posts 222’ formed to protrude from a bottom of the space; and two or more inserts 232/232’ formed to penetrate the vibration frame and fitted into the respective posts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the holding means taught by KR ‘807 in the device of KR ‘550 to provide a secure mounting for the vibration frame, thereby ensuring durability of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571 272-7124. 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK