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 1–10, 12–14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0279053 (published 27 September 2018) (“Clerici”) and US Patent Application Publication 2020/0059734 (published 20 February 2020) (“Chen”).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clerici; Chen and US Patent Application Publication 2020/0177996 (published 04 June 2020) (“Chen II”).
Claims 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clerici; Chen; Chen II and CN 109063343 A (published 21 December 2018) (“Xue”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a loudspeaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed loudspeaker and the Clerici reference.
Claim 1
The Clerici Reference
“1. A loudspeaker, comprising:
The Clerici reference similarly describes a MEMS loudspeaker. Clerici at Abs., ¶¶ 2, 64, FIG.5.
“a driving component configured to generate a vibration based on an electrical signal:
Clerici’s loudspeaker, or sound transducer assembly 20, includes a MEMS printed circuit board (PCB) 1 corresponding to the claimed driving component. Id. at ¶ 64. MEMS PCB 1 is formed as seen in FIGs.1 or 3. Id. It includes piezoelectric structures 3a, 3b that deflect along a lifting axis (i.e., vibrate) in response to a driving electrical signal applied at electrical contacts 9. Id. at ¶¶ 15, 52, 54–56, 70, FIG.1.
“a vibration component configured to receive the vibration of the driving component to vibrate; and
The loudspeaker further includes a membrane 22 that receives vibrations from PCB 1 via coupling element 21. Id. at ¶¶ 56, 70, FIGs.5, 6.
“a housing,
The loudspeaker includes a housing 30 formed by membrane frame 23, the outer periphery of PCB 1, second PCB 16 and housing part 19. Id. at ¶ 64, FIGs.5, 6.
“wherein the driving component and the vibration component are disposed in a cavity formed by the housing; wherein
As seen in FIG.6, membrane frame 23 and second PCB 16 form a gap 31, or cavity, that includes piezoelectric structures 3 and membrane 22. Id. at FIG.6.
“the cavity includes a front cavity disposed at one side of the vibration component and one or more rear cavities disposed at another side of the vibration component,
“the housing includes a rear cavity plate disposed within the cavity formed by the housing,
Gap 31 includes a front cavity 26, one or more rear cavities 24 and a housing part 19, or rear cavity plate, as claimed. Id. at FIG.6; also see Figure 1, below. Alternatively, second PCB 2 corresponds to the claimed rear cavity plate. Id. at FIG.6; also see Figure 1, below.
“at least one of the one or more rear cavities is at least enclosed by the driving component, the vibration component, and the rear cavity plate, and
The rear cavity 24 is enclosed by piezoelectric structure 3, membrane 22 and housing part 19, which corresponds to the claimed rear cavity plate.
“the rear cavity plate is provided with one or more through holes.”
Clerici does not describe housing part 19 as including one or more through holes.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
316
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Clerici at FIG.6 to highlight correspondence with elements of claim 1.
The table above shows that the Clerici reference describes a MEMs loudspeaker that corresponds closely to the claimed loudspeaker. Clerici does not anticipate the claimed inclusion of one or more through holes in a rear cavity plate, such as housing part 19.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Clerici reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. As shown in the table, the Clerici reference describes a MEMS loudspeaker that includes a rea cavity 24 located underneath membrane 22 and piezoelectric structure 3. Rear cavity 24 is sealed by housing part 19. Clerici does not describe the inclusion of through holes in housing part 19.
The Chen reference, like Clerici, also describes a piezoelectric loudspeaker. Chen at Abs., ¶¶ 7, 21–35, FIG.1A. Chen further teaches and suggests including through holes H2 in a PCB 122 in order to allow air communication with the rear C2 of piezoelectric device 150, vibration mold/diaphragm 140 and a second rear volume C1. Id. Chen teaches that the through holes allow for control over frequency response and improved speaker efficiency. Chen at ¶ 7.
Read in light of Clerici, Chen’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Clerici’s loudspeaker to similarly include through holes in PCB 2 in order to create an acoustic link between Clerici’s cavity 26 and cavity 24. Compare Clerici at FIG.6 with Chen at FIG.1A. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably configured the through holes to produce a desired frequency response and speaker efficiency. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a vibration surface of the driving component forms at least a portion of a sidewall of the at least one of the one or more rear cavities.”
Piezoelectric structure 3 is formed on a PCB 1 that forms a sidewall of rear cavity 24. Clerici at FIGs.5, 6; see also Figure 1, above. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“wherein the driving component includes a piezoelectric acoustic driver.”
Similarly, Clerici drives diaphragm 22 with a piezoelectric structure 3 including structures 3a and 3b. Clerici at ¶¶ 53, 55–56, FIGs.1, 5, 11. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the piezoelectric acoustic driver includes cantilever beams.”
Clerici’s piezoelectric structures 3a, 3b are similarly formed as cantilever beams. Clerici at ¶¶ 53, 55–56, FIGs.1, 5, 11. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and further requires the following:
“wherein a gap between adjacent cantilever beams is not greater than 25 um.”
Claim 6 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“wherein no less than 90% of a surface region on the vibration surface of the driving component is continuous.”
Claims 5 and 6 are treated together because they commonly recite design parameters of a driving component’s driving surface and its adjacent cantilever beams. Clerici describes piezoelectric structures 3a and 3b as being cut free by a continuous slot defined by elements 7, 33, 34, 35. Clerici at ¶ 59, FIGs.1, 2. As seen in FIGs.1, 2, the slot creates a gap between structures 3a, 3b. Clerici, however, does not specify the size of the gap. Nor does Clerici specify the amount of surface region of structures 3a and 3b that is continuous. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the size of slots and the amount of continuous surfaces are design parameters subject to the whims of the designer. The ultimate size of slots and continuous surfaces amounts will depend on the ultimate purpose and desired operational characteristics of Clerici’s loudspeaker. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art, after observing and reflecting on Clerici’s figures, would have reasonably recognized that the size of the slots and the continuous region of structures 3a and 3b will influence the weight, rigidity and flexibility of the structures to deflect and move member 21 to drive membrane 22. See also Clerici at ¶ 60 (describing the relationship between the slots and the ability to create a larger lift). One of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to vary these parameters and select those that optimize the designer’s goals. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
“wherein the driving component includes a piezoelectric membrane.”
Clerici’s piezoelectric structures 3a, 3b are formed as piezoelectric membranes—namely, a layered membrane formed by piezo layer 13 and upper/lower electrode layers 15, insulating layer 29 and support layer 14). Clerici at ¶¶ 75–76, FIGs.11, 12. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more rear cavities include at least two rear cavities, and the at least two rear cavities communicate with each other through the one or more through holes.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, the Chen reference further describes linking two rear cavities through one or more through holes. See Chen at FIG.1A (depicting holes H2 that link chambers C1 and C2). In particular, it would have been obvious to modify Clerici’s PCB 2 to include through holes to link cavity 26 with cavity 24. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“wherein the housing includes a rear cavity portion, wherein the rear cavity portion, the rear cavity plate, and the driving component enclose a first rear cavity; and
“the driving component, the vibration component, the rear cavity portion, and the rear cavity plate enclose a second rear cavity.”
Similarly, the Chen reference teaches forming a speaker with a first chamber C1 enclosed by a piezoelectric driver 152 and a base 110, which includes both a rear plate and a sidewall. Chen at ¶¶ 21–34, FIG.1A. A second chamber C2 is enclosed by the other side of piezoelectric driver 152, spacer 130 and vibration mold 140. Id. This model would suggest similarly forming Clerici’s loudspeaker in a similar way to include a first rear cavity enclosed by housing part 19 and piezoelectric structure 3 and a second rear cavity enclosed by piezoelectric structure 3, PCB 2 and membrane 22. Compare Clerici at FIG.6 with Chen at FIG.1A. As seen by comparing Clerici and Chen, Chen suggests adding through holes to PCB 1 or PCB 2 to link the two rear cavities. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9, and further requires the following:
“wherein the rear cavity portion includes a side plate and a sealing plate.”
Similarly, Clerici’s housing part 19 includes a side plate (i.e., sidewall) and sealing plate (i.e., bottom). Clerici at FIG.6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 9, and further requires the following:
“wherein the at least two rear cavities communicate with an outside through one or more sound guiding holes disposed on the rear cavity portion.”
Neither Clerici nor Chen describe, teach or suggest communicating rear cavities with an outside through sound guiding holes. The Chen II reference, like Clerici, also describes a piezoelectric loudspeaker. Chen II at Abs., ¶¶ 72–74, FIG. 17. Chen II further teaches and suggests including through holes 102c in a PCB 102 in order to allow air communication with the rear of piezoelectric device 114e, diaphragm 106 and a rear volume outside of the loudspeaker. Id. Chen II teaches that the through holes allow for reducing the size of the speaker since the housing would not need a large, attached back volume. Id. Rather, the back volume would be provided through another supporting structure, like a system board or by simply attaching gas permeable film to the through holes. Id.
Read in light of Clerici, Chen II’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Clerici’s loudspeaker to similarly include through holes in any of PCB 2 and housing part 19 in order to create an acoustic link between the rear of membrane 22, cavity 24 and a space outside housing 30. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably reduced the overall size of rear cavity 24 and relied on the ambient or a system board to provide a larger rear cavity. One of ordinary skill would have also reasonably included a gas permeable film on the through holes. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici, the Chen and the Chen II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a difference between a distance from a centerline of at least one of the one or more through holes to a centerline of the cavity and an equivalent radius of the driving component and a difference between an equivalent radius of the cavity and the equivalent radius of the driving component has a first preset ratio, and the first preset ratio is within a range of 0.3-0.9.”
Claim 19 depends on claim 12, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first preset ratio is within a range of 0.4-0.75.”
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein in a plane perpendicular to a centerline of the cavity, a sum of projection areas of the one or more through holes in the plane and a difference between a projection area of the cavity in the plane and a projection area of the driving component in the plane has a second preset ratio, and the second preset ratio is within a range of 0.02-1.”
Claim 20 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second preset ratio is within a range of 0.06-0.5.”
Claim 14 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein an aperture diameter of at least one of the one or more through holes is within a range of 0.2 mm-2 mm.”
Claims 12–14, 19 and 20 are treated together because they commonly recite design parameters pertaining to the location and size of the claimed through holes. Clerici and Chen do not describe the claimed ranges of values. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the absolute sizes, relative sizes and relative locations of through holes are parameters that are subject to the whims of the designer. The ultimate size of slots and continuous surfaces amounts will depend on the ultimate purpose and desired operational characteristics of Clerici’s loudspeaker. For example, Chen teaches that the through holes affect frequency response and efficiency. Chen at ¶ 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to vary these parameters and select those that optimize the designer’s goals. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici and the Chen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one of the one or more through holes is provided with a damping net.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 11, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to modify the Clerici refrence’s loudspeaker to include through-holes in housing member 19 and/or PCB 2. In connection with that modification, the Chen II reference further teaches and suggests adding a gas permeable film to the through-holes. Chen II at ¶ 73. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici, the Chen and the Chen II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, and further requires the following:
“wherein an acoustic impedance of the damping net is within a range of 3 MKS rayls-10000 MKS rayls.”
Claim 17 depends on claim 15, and further requires the following:
“wherein a size of each of pores of the damping net is within a range of 18 um-285 um.”
Claim 18 depends on claim 15, and further requires the following:
“wherein a porosity of the damping net is within a range of 13%-44%.”
Claims 16–18 are treated together since they commonly recite design parameters of a damping net. The Chen II reference does not describe an acoustic impedance, size of pores and porosity of a gas permeable film. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the impedance, size of pores and porosity are parameters that are subject to the whims of the designer. The ultimate value of these parameters will depend on the ultimate purpose and desired operational characteristics of Clerici’s loudspeaker. For example, the Kearey reference at ¶ 27 and the Xue reference1, 2 teaches and suggests modifying each of these values to produce a desired impedance and resulting frequency response. One of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to vary these parameters and select those that optimize the designer’s goals. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici, the Chen, the Chen II and the Xue references 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.
Additional Citations
The following table lists references that were found during a search and are relevant to the subject matter claimed and described in this Application. These references do not form a basis of any rejection in this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
US 20240259733
Related Application
Table 2
Conclusion
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/
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
1/9/2026
1 Xue: “(5) by control variable and parameter scanning model, solving the finite element model, it can calculate the different porosity, net cover aperture and thickness corresponding to the frequency response curve, each curve contrast thereby to select optimal.”
2 Xue: “step 4: defining a mesh enclosure parameter. through the inner porous plate acoustic module to set the network mask parameter, the parameter comprises the aperture of the mesh, the mesh enclosure through the porosity and thickness of the net cover.
“step 5: performing the finite element solving to obtain the mesh enclosure loudspeaker with double-curve. FIG. 5 the simulation calculated FR. using control variable and parameter scan. In step 4 first fixing aperture of the mesh and mesh enclosure through the aperture, gradually scanning the net thickness of the shield (1 mm, 1.5 mm, 2 mm ...) to obtain different net cover thickness influence to the frequency response curve, similarly, can obtain the aperture of the mesh and the mesh enclosure through porosity influence to the frequency response curve. the final optimal solution can be selected to obtain optimal mesh enclosure parameter.”