DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed February 18, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the § 103 rejections.
The D2 reference does teach the interchanging of coil and linear motors (see ¶ 0025: vibrator 10 may be driven by voice coils (e.g., electric coil 32) and/or by linear motors (e.g., linear motors 50), thus it would have been well known to replace the coils of D1 with linear motors.
References
D1: US5959939 Tengham et al. September 28, 1999
D2: US20170299739 Tenghamn October 19, 2017
D3: US5337461 Falcus August 16, 1994
D4: US11893975 Butler et al. May 4, 2021
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2.
With regards to claims 1 and 9-11 the D1 reference discloses a drive assembly for acoustic sources, the drive assembly comprising: at least one vibrating surface (1) capable of being set in vibrational motion; a frame (4) comprising at least two or more motors (3); two or more flexible transmission elements (5) connecting between fastening devices and extending on both sides of the axis, between the two fastening devices (2); the two or more motors (3) connected to the transmission elements (5), and that each of the motors are adapted to provide a controlled oscillating motion; and a sound emitting surface connected to the fastening devices (Abstract) The difference between the D1 reference and claim 1 is that the claim recites the utilization of linear motors instead of coils. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize to substitute linear motors for coils (see ¶¶ 0025, 0030). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize linear motors as motivated by the D2 reference to enable the D1 system to generate opposite polarity waves (see ¶ 0030.
With regards to claim 2, the D1 reference discloses the motors are centrally positioned on the frame (see Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 3, the D2 reference discloses the motors oscillate at a frequency less than 10 Hz (see ¶ 0025) to enable the D1 reference to generate lower frequencies.
With regards to claim 4, the D2 reference discloses the flexible transmission elements oscillate at from 5 Hz to 25 Hz (see ¶ 0029) to enable the D1 reference to generate more frequencies.
With regards to claim 5, the D2 reference discloses the first and second frequency are between 1 to 300 Hz (see ¶ 0029) to enable the D1 reference to generate more frequencies.
With regards to claim 7, the D2 reference discloses the utilization of spring element (see ¶ 0025) to enable the D1 reference to generate more frequencies.
With regards to claims 12-14, the D2 reference discloses at least two resonance frequencies to enable the D1 reference to generate more frequencies.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, and further in combination with D3.
Claims 6 and 8 additionally recites the utilization of carbon fiber, glass fiber, and spring steel. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize carbon fiber, glass fiber, and spring steel (see column 1, lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination of references to utilize carbon fiber, glass fiber, and spring steel as motivated by the D3 reference to enable the system to provide flexible elements capable of generation vibrations.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 and D3 as applied to claims 6 and 8 above, and further in combination with D4.
Claim 15 additionally recites the utilization of additional spring elements. The D4 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize nested flexible elements (see Fig. 2: 104, 106, 122). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination of references to utilize nested flexible elements as motivated by the D4 reference to enable the system to provide higher amplification flextensional transduction (see Title).
With regards to claim 16, the D2 reference discloses at least two resonance frequencies to enable the system to generate more frequencies.
With regards to claim 17, the D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize carbon fiber, glass fiber, and spring steel (see column 1, lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination of references to utilize carbon fiber, glass fib er, and spring steel as motivated by the D3 reference to enable the system to provide flexible elements capable of generation vibrations.
With regards to claim 18, the D2 reference discloses the first and second frequency are between 1 to 300 Hz (see 1 0029) to enable the system to generate more frequencies.
With regards to claim 19, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of flexible plates or rods (column 2, pages 58-67).
With regards to claim 20, the D1 reference discloses the elements are rotatably fastened (column 2, pages 58-67).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR § .136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Helal Algahaim, can be reached on 571-270-5227.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645