DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restriction
This communication is responsive to the provisional election made with traverse on 11/21/2025, and the traversal is found to be persuasive. Therefore, the restriction requirement has been vacated.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-9, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CHIANG et al. (U. S. Pat. App. Pub. No. – 2015/0071468).
Regarding claim 1, CHIANG et al. disclose an electrostatic transducer (1) comprising: first and second flexible conductive membranes (105, 205); and first and second conductive stators (101, 201); wherein the membranes and the stators are assembled in a layered configuration with the membranes between the stators (Figs. 1-3); wherein the electrostatic transducer is arranged in use to apply an electrical potential which gives rise to an electrostatic force between the membranes and the stators that causes the membranes to move relative to the stators ([0022]); and wherein the first and second flexible conductive membranes have respective first and second effective compliances ([0009, 0025]) as claimed. But CHIANG et al. may not specially teach that the first effective compliance is at least 10% greater than the second effective compliance as claimed. Since Chiang et al. also disclose that the first effective compliance is different with the second effective compliance ([0025]) and providing suitable effective compliance for each conductive membranes of an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice). Furthermore, Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable effective compliance for each conductive membranes, such as the first effective compliance is at least 10% greater than the second effective compliance of the electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide desirable electrostatic transducer for certain applications.
Regarding claim 2, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer wherein a thickness of the first/second membrane is greater than a thickness of the second/first membrane ([0025]). But CHIANG et al. may not specially teach that a thickness of the second membrane is at least 3% greater than a thickness of the first membrane as claimed. Since Chiang et al. also disclose that the first effective compliance is different with the second effective compliance ([0025]) and providing suitable effective compliance for each conductive membranes of an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice). Furthermore, Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable thickness for each membrane, such as thickness of the second membrane is at least 3% greater than thickness of the first membrane for each conductive membranes of the electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide desirable electrostatic transducer for certain applications.
Regarding claim 3, CHIANG et al. may not specially teach that a thickness of the first membrane is 5-100 µm as claimed. Since providing suitable thickness for each membrane of an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice) and Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable thickness for each membrane, such as thickness of the first membrane is 5-100 µm of the electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide desirable electrostatic transducer for certain applications.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 9, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer wherein the first and second membranes are mounted in the transducer under respective first and second tensile stresses (Fig. 1). But CHIANG et al. may not specially teach that the second tensile stress is at least 5% greater than the first tensile stress as claimed. Since Chiang et al. also disclose that the first membrane is different with the second membrane ([0025]) and providing suitable tensile stresses for each conductive membrane of an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice). Furthermore, Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable first and second membranes mounted in the transducer under respective first and second tensile stresses, such as the second tensile stress is at least 5% greater than the first tensile stress, and/or a tensile stress of the first membrane is in the range 2MPa to 50MPa, for the electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide desirable electrostatic transducer for certain applications.
Regarding claim 6, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer, wherein the first and second membranes are made from different materials ([0025]).
Regarding claim 7, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer, wherein each membrane comprises a laminated structure ([0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 8, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer, wherein each membrane comprises or consists of a layer of flexible insulating material with a conductive layer on one side thereof without an additional flexible insulating layer overlaid on and bonded to the conductive layer ([0026-0026]).
Regarding claim 12, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer, wherein there is no intervening element between the first and second membranes (Figs. 2-3) as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, CHIANG et al. may not specially teach that a spacing between the first and second membranes is at least 5 µm as claimed. Since providing suitable sized space between first and second membranes of an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice) and Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable spacing between the first and second membranes, such as at least 5 µm for the electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide desirable electrostatic transducer for certain applications.
Regarding claim 14, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer, wherein the first and second membranes are electrically coupled ([0026]).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 18, CHIANG et al. may not specially teach one or more further membranes/stator between the first and second stators/membranes as claimed. Since providing suitable at least one additional membrane/stator between first and second membranes/stators for an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice), and Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable at least one additional membrane/stator, such as the at least one additional membrane/stator with perforations, between the first and second membranes/stators for an electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide enhanced acoustic output for the electrostatic transducer with balanced pressure.
Regarding claim 17, CHIANG et al. may not specially teach that a spacing between the first and second membranes is at least 20 µm as claimed. Since providing suitable sized space between first and second membranes of an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice) and Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable spacing between the first and second membranes, such as at least 20 µm for the electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide desirable electrostatic transducer for certain applications.
Regarding claim 19, CHIANG et al. further disclose the electrostatic transducer, wherein the membranes are electrically insulated from each other (by the space in between, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, CHIANG et al. may not specially teach that at least one of the first stator, the second stator and a further stator comprises an insulating coating on one or more surfaces facing the membranes as claimed. Since providing suitable protective insulating coating on one or more surfaces of an electrostatic transducer is very well known in the art (Official Notice) and Chiang et al. do suggest for modification of the electrostatic transducer ([0033]), it therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable protective insulating coating on one or more surfaces of the electrostatic transducer taught by CHIANG et al., in order to provide desirable protection for stator(s) of the electrostatic transducer, for making the electrostatic transducer more durable.
Manufacture method claims 22-23 are similar to claims 1-9, 12-19 and 21 except for being couched in manufacture method terminology; such methods would be inherent when the structure is shown in the references.
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 SUHAN NI whose telephone number is (571)272-7505. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10:00 am to 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a PTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/SUHAN NI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691