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 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) 1-8, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applicant’s cited references WO2018/123310 (Masuda et al hereinafter Masuda) and in view of JP2017-530631 (Kuksenkov et al hereinafter Kuksenkov).
Regarding claim 1, Masuda discloses an exciter-attached diaphragm (Figs. 4, 6, 14, 16, 30, 42), comprising: a flat panel (fig. 4, flat panel 10); an exciter (fig. 14, para. 0032, vibrators 21 and 22 at the vibration points 11A and 11B) attached on a main surface side of the flat panel and configured to vibrate the flat panel; and a vibration damping member located on a periphery of the exciter (fig. 14, vibration-damping member 16L, 16 R. para. 0034, 0035), surrounding at least a part of the exciter, and attached on the main surface side in a plan view of the flat panel, wherein the vibration damping member comprises a vibration attenuation layer (figs. 6, adhesive layer 161, para. 0029) and a vibration damping material (fig. 6, a sponge layer 162, 0029) laminated from the main surface side of the flat panel, and the exciter is disposed apart from the vibration damping member (see fig. 14).
Masuda does not explicitly disclose a glass plate.
However, a glass plate serving as a flat panel type diaphragm is notorious old and well known.
For instance, in the related field of the invention, Kuksenkov teaches a thin panel loudspeaker wherein the panel may be a glass panel, which may be selected from a single pane of glass, multiple sheets of glass stacked together, a glass-to-glass laminate, and a glass-to-polymer laminate. Additionally, the panels may include other materials in addition to engineered honeycomb panels, such as metal, plastic, wood, paper, and engineered materials, such as laminated materials like plywood and laminated glass and plastic composites. In other embodiments, the at least one transducer may be a single linear transducer mounted on the panel, or may be multiple transducers mounted on the panel at multiple excitation locations (para. 0003, 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the teaching and well-known glass plate as a flat panel type diaphragm by Kuksenkov as an alternative material and for a particular application.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Masuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the vibration damping member is disposed so as to surround 50% or more of the periphery of the exciter in the plan view of the glass plate and wherein a distance D between the exciter and the vibration damping member is 0.2 mm to 50 mm.
However, Masuda does not limit to any dimensions of the vibration damping member and a distance D between the exciter and the vibration damping member as claimed (para. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Masuda to a specific dimension of the vibration damping member and a specific distance between the exciter and the vibration damping member for a particular application. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Masuda also shows wherein the vibration damping member is disposed so as to entirely surround the periphery of the exciter in the plan view of the flat panel (see figs, 14 and 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the teaching and well-known glass plate as a flat panel type diaphragm by Kuksenkov as an alternative material and for a particular application.
Regarding claim 4, Masuda also shows wherein the vibration damping member extends with a substantially constant width in the plan view of the flat panel (see fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Masuda also shows wherein the vibration damping member is point symmetrical with respect to a center of gravity of the exciter in the plan view of the flat panel (see figs. 33, 36, 38).
Regarding claim 6, Masuda does teach wherein the vibration damping member has an annular shape (para. 0035 … The vibration damping member 16R may have a shape in which an annular convex portion is divided into two or more portions, as shown in FIGS. 15 and 16…).
Regarding claim 7, Kuksenkov also teaches wherein the exciter is fixed to the glass plate via an adhesive layer (para. 0032, “…The transducer may, for example, be a small electric motor, which may be attached directly to the panel and/or frame, for example with adhesive (a "direct mount" design…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the teaching, well-known glass plate as a flat panel type diaphragm and adhesive by Kuksenkov as an alternative material and for a particular application.
Regarding claim 8, Masuda does not explicitly disclose wherein an area of the adhesive layer is SE and an area of the vibration attenuation layer is SA, and SA is 80% to 500% when SE is 100% in the plan view of the glass plate.
However, Masuda does not limit to any dimensions of components (para. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Masuda to a specific dimension of the adhesive layer and the vibration attenuation layer for a particular application. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Masuda also shows wherein a height of the vibration damping member is same as or lower than a height of the exciter when a main surface of the glass plate is used as a reference (see fig. 30).
Regarding claim 14, Masuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the vibration damping material has a specific gravity of 1.0 or more.
However, Masuda does not limit to any specific material of components (para. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Masuda to a specific material of the vibration damping member in order to reduce noises.
Regarding claim 15, Masuda does teach wherein the vibration damping material comprises at least one material selected from a resin (para. 0029, a sponge layer 162), a glass, a metal, and a ceramic.
Regarding claim 16, Masuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the vibration attenuation layer comprises a material having a loss factor of 1.0 × 10-2 or more measured at 25°C.
However, Masuda does not limit to any specific material of components (para. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Masuda to a specific material of the vibration attenuation layer in order to reduce noises.
Regarding claim 17, Kuksenkov does teach wherein the glass plate is a single plate glass (para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the teaching and well-known glass plate as a flat panel type diaphragm by Kuksenkov as an alternative material and for a particular application.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applicant’s cited references WO2018/123310 (Masuda et al hereinafter Masuda) and in view of JP2017-530631 (Kuksenkov et al hereinafter Kuksenkov) and further in view of JP2006-115167 (Akira et al hereinafter Akira).
Regarding claim 9, Masuda and Kuksenkov do not explicitly disclose wherein the exciter is mechanically fixed via a mounting member attached to a main surface of the glass plate.
However, this claimed limitation is notorious old and well known.
For instance, in the related field of the invention, Akira teaches a speaker device that uses a vehicle interior panel as a diaphragm with the exciter is mechanically fixed via a mounting member attachment (fig. 2, para. 0027, 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the teaching by Akira in Masuda and Kuksenkov as an alternative attaching mean for securing a component.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applicant’s cited references WO2018/123310 (Masuda et al hereinafter Masuda) and in view of JP2017-530631 (Kuksenkov et al hereinafter Kuksenkov) and further in view of US2023/0191754 (Boure).
Regarding claim 18, Masuda and Kuksenkov do explicitly disclose wherein the glass plate is a tempered glass.
However, a tempered glass is notorious old and well known.
For instance, in the related field, Boure teaches a glazing comprising: a glass sheet or a glazed assembly comprising at least one hole, the glazed assembly being a multilayer glazed element of which at least one layer is a glass sheet, and at least one audio exciter mounted on a mounting; wherein the mounting is inserted into the at least one hole of the glass sheet or of the glazed assembly and wherein he glass sheet is made of organic or mineral glass. It can be made of tempered glass (para. 0008-0011, 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the well-known tempered glass by Boure in Masuda and Kuksenkov for a vehicle application.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applicant’s cited references WO2018/123310 (Masuda et al hereinafter Masuda) and in view of JP2017-530631 (Kuksenkov et al hereinafter Kuksenkov) and further in view of WO2021/060214 = US2022/0217470 (Akiyama et al hereinafter Akiyama).
Regarding claim 19, Masuda and Kuksenkov do not explicitly disclose wherein the glass plate is a bent glass having a predetermined curvature.
However, a bent glass having a predetermined curvature is notorious old and well known.
For instance, in the related field, Akiyama teaches a glass diaphragm may have a planar shape or such a curved shape as to be curved (bent) to conform to an installation place (para. 0150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the well-known a bent glass having a predetermined curvature by Akiyama in Masuda and Kuksenkov for a vehicle application (para, 0088).
Regarding claim 20, Akiyama also teaches a vehicular window glass, comprising: the exciter-attached diaphragm according to claim 1 as a window member (para. 0088, 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the well-known a bent glass having a predetermined curvature by Akiyama in Masuda and Kuksenkov for a vehicle application (para, 0088).
. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art of record fails to teach the limitations of claim 10 “wherein the mounting member is disposed between the glass plate, and the exciter and the vibration damping member.“ and the limitations of claim 12 “wherein the exciter has a T-shaped cross section or an inverted L-shaped cross section, and in the plan view of the glass plate, a part of the exciter and at least a part of the vibration damping member are disposed so as to overlap each other with a gap therebetween.“. Therefore, the prior art teachings neither anticipate nor render obvious the allowable subject matter in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN DUC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8163. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/TUAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699