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).
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this Application on 16 July 2026 after a Final Rejection (19 May 2026). Since this Application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 July 2026 has been entered.
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 1–7, 12–15, 19, 20 and 22 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”); US Patent Application Publication 2020/0059734 (published 20 February 2020) (“Chen”); Imam Shahosseini et al., Optimization and Microfabrication of High Performance Silicon-Based MEMS Microspeaker, 13 IEEE Sensors Journal 273 (January 2013) (“Shahosseini”) and US Patent Application Publication 2023/0370779 (effectively filed 19 August 2020) (“Jin”).
Claims 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clerici; Chen; Shen Chen II; CN 109063343 A (published 21 December 2018) (“Xue”) and US Patent Application Publication 2001/0033671 (published 25 October 2001) (“Kearey”).
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 PCB 16, or rear cavity plate, as claimed. 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 26 is enclosed by piezoelectric structure 3, membrane 22 and a portion of PCB 16, which corresponds to the claimed rear cavity plate.
“the rear cavity plate is provided with one or more through holes,
Clerici does not describe PCB 16 as including one or more through holes.
“the vibration component includes an elastic element and a reinforcing member;
The Clerici reference similarly describes membrane 22 as having an elastic element (i.e., the peripheral portion that connects with frame 23) and a reinforcing member (i.e., the relatively thick central portion connected to element 21). Clerici at FIG.6. See also Figure 2, below.
“the elastic element includes a central region, a folded ring region disposed at a periphery of the central region, and a fixed region disposed at a periphery of the folded ring region, and the elastic element is configured to vibrate in a direction perpendicular to the central region; and
The elastic element has a fixing region, central region and folded ring region arranged as claimed. Figure 2, below. The elastic element is configured to vibrate perpendicular to the central region along a lifting axis. See Clerici at ¶¶ 55–56, 70.
“the reinforcing member is connected with the central region,
“the reinforcing member includes a reinforcing part and a plurality of hollow parts, and
“vibrations of the reinforcing member and the elastic element generate at least two resonance peaks within an audible range of human ears,
“the reinforcing member includes one or more ring structures and one or more strip structures;
“at least one of the one or more strip structures has a plurality of different thicknesses in a vibration direction of the elastic element
Clerici locates a relatively thick reinforcing member in the central region of membrane 22. Id. at ¶ 70, FIG.6. See also Figure 2, below.
Clerici does not describe the reinforcing member of membrane 22 as having a plurality of hollow parts. Clerici does not describe that vibration of membrane 22 produces two resonance peaks within the audible range of human ears. Clerici does not describe the reinforcing member as including one or more ring structures and one or more strip structures. Clerici does not describe that at least one of the strip structures has a plurality of different thicknesses in a vibration direction (i.e., Clerici’s lifting axis).
N/A
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
352
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Clerici at FIG.6 to highlight correspondence with elements of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
245
963
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Marked-up version of Clerici at FIG.6 to highlight correspondence with elements of claim 21.
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 PCB 16 to allow communication between first and second rear cavities 24, 26. Clerici does not anticipate that the reinforcing member of membrane 22 as having a plurality of hollow parts. Clerici does not describe that vibration of membrane 22 produces two resonance peaks within the audible range of human ears. Clerici does not describe the reinforcing member as including one or more ring structures and one or more strip structures. Clerici does not describe that at least one of the strip structures has a plurality of different thicknesses in a vibration direction (i.e., Clerici’s lifting axis).
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 rear 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 at least one of PCB 2 and 16 (i.e., a rear cavity plate) 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.
The Clerici reference describes a MEMS device. In the same field of endeavor, the Shahosseini reference teaches techniques for forming a MEMS membrane that exhibits both large out-of-plane displacement and low density to reduce weight. Shahosseini at Abs. Shahosseini’s membrane includes multiple rings and ribs that interconnect the rings. Id. at p.277, ¶¶ 4–7, p.288, ¶¶ 1–3, FIG.3. Shahosseini explains that this configuration shifts all but two natural vibration modes (i.e., resonance frequencies) out of the audible range. Id.
The Jin reference describes a diaphragm (i.e., membrane) configured with bars 8 featuring different heights along the radial extent of the diaphragm. Jin at ¶¶ 25–27. Jin teaches that the different heights improve both bass response and treble response by distributing vibrations to different portions of the diaphragm. Id.
Read in light of Clerici, the teachings of the Shahosseini reference suggest modifying Clerici’s membrane to include a set of rings and ribs to rigidify the membrane while shifting as many natural vibration modes out of the hearing range as possible, leaving at most two. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying Shahosseini’s teachings concerning a MEMS membrane to Clerici’s MEMS membrane, which does not include rings and ribs, to shift all but two natural vibration modes out of the audible hearing range). Further, the teachings of the Jin reference reasonably suggest further adjusting the height of any ribs added to Clerici’s membrane to further tune the response of the membrane, including improving both bass and treble responses. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying Jin’s teachings on rib height to the Clerici-Shahosseini ribs to further tune response and improve both bass and treble response). For example, following Jin’s example of FIG.4, a central portion of a rib may be higher/thicker than a peripheral portion. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin 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, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin 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, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin 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, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin 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, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin 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, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin 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. See also Shen at ¶¶ 36–46, FIGs.6–11 (discussing in detail the sizing of cavities and vents to achieve a desired 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 Shahosseini and the Jin 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 1, 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 Shen reference further teaches and suggests adding a damper mesh to the through-holes. Shen at ¶¶ 34, 57. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin 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 teach and suggest 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 Shahosseini, the Jin, the Chen II, the Xue and the Kearey references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the driving component includes a driving unit and a vibration transmission unit,
“one end of the vibration transmission unit in a vibration direction of the central region is connected with the driving unit, and the other end of the vibration transmission unit is connected with the central region; and
“the reinforcing member includes a central connection part, the vibration transmission unit is directly connected with the central connection part and connected with the central region through the central connection part, or the vibration transmission unit is directly connected with the central region and indirectly connected with the central connection part through the central region.”
Clerici’s loudspeaker, or sound transducer assembly 20, includes a MEMS printed circuit board (PCB) 1 and a coupling element 21 corresponding to the claimed driving component. Clerici at ¶¶ 63–64, FIG.5. PCB 1 corresponds to the claimed driving unit and coupling element 21 corresponds to the claimed vibration transmission unit since it transmits vibrations of PCB 1 to membrane 22. Id. at ¶ 70.
Clerici describes connecting coupling element 21 to PCB 1 at a fastening section 5 located in the center of PCB 1 and membrane 22. Id. at ¶ 63, FIGs.1, 5. The other end of coupling element 21 couples to the center of membrane 22. See id. at FIG.5. The portion of membrane 22 that directly couples with element 21 may be fairly described as a central connection part because it is centrally located and provides a direct connection with element 21 while providing an indirect connection between element 21 and the remainder of membrane 22. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Clerici, the Chen, the Shahosseini and the Jin references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–7, 12–20 and 22 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
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (16 July 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. The rejections have been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 7–12 further comments on the rejections included in the previous Final Rejection (19 May 2026). Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejections presented in this Office action. In particular, the additional teachings of the Shahosseini and the Jin references moot Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the claims.
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/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
9/16/2026
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.”
Prosecution Insights