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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/21/24 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/21/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernal Castillo et al. (US 2020/0275222 A1).
Re claim 1: Bernal Castillo et al. teaches an audio output device comprising: a plurality of actuators (depicted for example in figure 3A, including elements 326 and 33) each of which function to vibrate) or as depicted in an alternative embodiment in figure 8A, elements 826a, 826b) that vibrates a diaphragm from a back surface side to output audio from a front surface side of the diaphragm (See discussion in paragraph [0050] directed to similar use of elements); and a determination unit (such as element 308 or 808) that determines presence or absence of abnormality of an inspection target actuator to be inspected among the actuators on a basis of a displacement signal from a measurement actuator arranged in a vicinity of the inspection target actuator (note the processor receives signals from a detection actuator/sensor (such as (330) that indicates if an actuator (such as 326) provides enough actuation to the backside of the display to obtain a desired audio output; see discussion in paragraph [0054] and [0057]) , the displacement signal being output in response to vibration of the inspection target actuator (note the displacement signal sensed by element (330) is in response to a vibration produced in the display by the actuator (326).
Re claim 17: this claim substantially sets forth in a method that corresponds to the operation of the device as set forth in claim 1 and is deemed taught by the operation of those features in Bernal Castillo et al. as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Re claim 14: the claimed unit that generates a signal for the target actuator is satisfied by element (324)
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0170625 A1).
Re claim 9: The teaching of Bernal Castillo et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bernal Castillo et al. does not teach that the electronic device includes a substrate having light emitting element(s) mounted thereon. Liu et al. teaches in a similar environment of electronic devices that the display includes a substrate mounting light emitting elements (see paragraph [100]) providing a means which allows for images to be displayed to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these features of Liu et al. into the device arrangement of Bernal Castillo et al. to predictable provide means which allows for images to be displayed to a user. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0058690 A1)
Re claims 15-16: The teaching of Bernal Castillo et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bernal Castillo et al. does not teach the type of actuator used; piezo (claim 15) or voice coil (claim 16). Lee et al. teaches in a similar environment each of these types of actuators to vibrate the display (paragraph [0101] and be used alternatively for the same purpose of vibrating the display for audio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate either of these actuators into the device arrangement of Bernal Castillo et al. to predictably provide alternatives in the structure used to vibrate the display and provide audio. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al.as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2013/0222722 A1).
Re claim 12: The teaching of Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach to tile the display arrangement. Zhao et al. teaches in a similar environment to tile displays (See paragraph [0176] as an alternative way of displaying information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al. as applied to predictably provide an alternative way in which information can be displayed to a user. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The claimed device including those features set forth in claim 1 in combination wherein the determination unit determines presence or absence of abnormality of the inspection target actuator by comparing the displacement signal output from the measurement actuator in response to vibration of the inspection target actuator with a reference signal recorded in advance for the measurement actuator as set forth in claim 2 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 3-8 depend upon those features of claim 2/1. The claimed device including in combination those features set forth in claim 9/1 further comprising a presentation control unit that presents presence or absence of abnormality of the inspection target actuator as set forth in claim 10 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 11 depend upon those features of claim 10/9/1.
The claimed device including in combination those features set forth in claim 1 that further comprises an audio output unit that is configured by combining a plurality of the diaphragms as set forth in claim 13 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 1/26/26
Prosecution Insights