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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "second vibration transmission diaphragm" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the "second vibration transmission diaphragm" will be read as “second vibration plate”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 4-8, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otto et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,341,948, patented on May 24, 2022 (Otto).
As to Claim 1, Otto discloses a transducer [21b], comprising: a magnetic circuit system [6b], including a magnet assembly [11b] and a magnetic conductive cover [10b] (the cover [10b] is formed from soft iron; col. 11, line 36), the magnetic conductive cover [10b] being arranged at least partially around the magnet assembly [11b]; and a vibration plate, including a first vibration plate [13a’] and a second vibration plate [13a’’], the first vibration plate [13a’] and the second vibration plate [13a’’] being respectively distributed on both sides of the magnet assembly [11b] along a vibration direction of the magnet assembly [11b] (see Fig. 3), and being configured to elastically support the magnet assembly [11c] within the magnetic conductive cover [10b], wherein a resonance peak frequency of the transducer [21b] is less than 300 Hz (a rocking resonance frequency of 500 Hz is twice the peak excursion frequency, which would be 250 Hz; the peak excursion frequency corresponds to a peak resonance frequency; col. 4, lines 9-22).
As to Claim 4, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 1. Otto further discloses that the first vibration plate [13a’] or the second vibration plate [13a’’] includes: an edge region [15a], a central region [16a], and multiple support rods [14a] connecting the edge region [15a] to the central region [16a] (see Fig. 7), wherein the central region [16a] is connected to the magnet assembly [6a] (see Figs. 3, 7, and 8).
As to Claim 5, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 1. Otto further discloses that a ratio of a distance between a starting point and an ending point of one of the multiple support rods along a length direction of the first vibration plate or the second vibration plate to a length of the support rod is within a range of 0-1.2 (the support rods [14c] are not a straight line which would imply a ratio of at least less than 1; see Fig. 8).
As to Claim 6, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 4. Otto further discloses that one of the multiple support rods satisfies at least one of: a length of the support rod is within a range of 7 mm-25 mm; a thickness of the support rod is within a range of 0.1 mm-0.2 mm; a width of the support rod is within a range of 0.25 mm-0.5 mm; or a ratio of a thickness of the vibration plate where the support rod is located to the width of the support rod is within a range of 0.16-0.75 (the width of the support rod [14] is 2 to 10 times the thickness, which is a support rod thickness to width ration of 0.1 – 0.5; col. 21, lines 22-30).
As to Claim 7, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 4. Otto further discloses that the magnet assembly includes a magnet [9b] and a first magnetically conductive plate [7b] and a second magnetically conductive plate [8a] fixed on both sides of the magnet [9b] (col. 11, lines 32-36) along the vibration direction of the magnet assembly [6a], wherein the central region of the first vibration plate [13a’] is connected to the first magnetically conductive plate [7b], and the central region of the second vibration (plate) [13a’’] is connected to the second magnetically conductive plate [7b] (see Fig. 3).
As to Claim 8, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 7. Otto further discloses that the magnet [9a] includes a first hole, and the magnetically conductive plate [7b] includes a second hole corresponding to the first hole (see Fig. 3).
As to Claim 10, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 7. Otto further discloses that an edge region of the first vibration plate [13a’] is connected to one end of the magnetic conductive cover [10b] along the vibration direction [A] of the magnet assembly [6b], an edge region of the second vibration plate [13a’’] is connected to the other end of the magnetic conductive cover [10b] along the vibration direction [A] of the magnet assembly [6b], and the first vibration plate [13a’] and the second vibration plate [13a’’] form an elastic support for the magnet assembly [6b] (see Fig. 3).
As to Claim 12, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 1. Otto further discloses a coil [3b] arranged in the magnetic circuit system, wherein the magnetic conductive cover [10b] is disposed outside the coil [3b], and an inner wall of the magnetic conductive cover [10b] fits against an outer wall of the coil [3b] (see Fig. 3).
As to Claim 18, Otto discloses a loudspeaker, comprising a housing, an electronic component, and a transducer [21b] wherein the housing forms a cavity accommodating the transducer and an air-conduction loudspeaker (the transducer forms an air-conduction loudspeaker built into a housing of a mobile device, which would inherently have an electronic component such as a microphone; col. 13, lines 36-55), and the transducer [21b] includes: a magnetic circuit system [6b], including a magnet assembly [11b] and a magnetic conductive cover [10b] (the cover [10b] is formed from soft iron; col. 11, line 36), the magnetic conductive cover [10b] being arranged at least partially around the magnet assembly [11b]; and a vibration plate, including a first vibration plate [13a’] and a second vibration plate [13a’’], the first vibration plate [13a’] and the second vibration plate [13a’’] being respectively distributed on both sides of the magnet assembly [11b] along a vibration direction of the magnet assembly [11b] (see Fig. 3), and being configured to elastically support the magnet assembly [11c] within the magnetic conductive cover [10b], wherein a resonance peak frequency of the transducer [21b] is less than 300 Hz (a rocking resonance frequency of 500 Hz is twice the peak excursion frequency, which would be 250 Hz; the peak excursion frequency corresponds to a peak resonance frequency; col. 4, lines 9-22).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,341,948, patented on May 24, 2022 (Otto), in view of Teshima et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,628,798, patented on September 30, 2003 (Teshima).
As to Claim 2, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 1. Otto does not explicitly disclose a total axial elastic coefficient of the vibration plate, specifically that it is less than 18000 N/m. However, adjusting the axial elastic coefficient to adjust for a specific resonance was well known. Teshima discloses a similar transducer, where the vibration plate [21] has a total axial elastic coefficient of less than 18000 N/m (the elastic coefficient is between 1.4×10-3 and 1.4×10-3 N/m; col. 8, lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide a vibration plate with a total axial elastic coefficient of less than 18000 N/m, in order to obtain the desired resonance.
As to Claim 3, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 1. Otto does not explicitly disclose an axial elastic coefficient of the first or second vibration plate, specifically less than 9000 N/m. However, adjusting the axial elastic coefficient to adjust for a specific resonance was well known. Teshima discloses a similar transducer, where the vibration plate [21] has a total axial elastic coefficient of less than 9000 N/m (the elastic coefficient is between 1.4×10-3 and 1.4×10-3 N/m; col. 8, lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide either vibration plate with a total axial elastic coefficient of less than 9000 N/m, in order to obtain the desired resonance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,341,948, patented on May 24, 2022 (Otto), in view of Konuma et al., WIPO Publication No. 2013/145227, published on October 3, 2013 (Konuma) (English machine translation provided).
As to Claim 9, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 7. Otto does not explicitly disclose a specific ratio of a thickness of the magnetically conductive plate to a thickness of the magnet, in particular, a ratio within a range of 0.05-0.35. However, providing such a ratio was well known. Konuma teaches a transducer wherein a ratio of of a thickness of the magnetically conductive plate to a thickness of the magnet is within a range of 0.05-0.35 (a ratio of the thickness of the magnet [130] to the thickness of the plate [110] is 16:3; para. 0061; which means that a ratio of the plate to a thickness of the magnet would be 3:16, or 0.1875). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide a ratio within a range of 0.05-0.35 such as the 0.1875 ratio taught by Konuma, for the obvious benefit of efficiency and optimal magnetic flux density (Konuma: para. 0061).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,341,948, patented on May 24, 2022 (Otto).
As to Claim 17, Otto remains as applied to Claim 12 above. Otto makes no mention of a mass of the transducer, specifically that a mass of the transducer is within a range of 2 g-5 g. However, limitation regarding changes in size or proportion do not necessarily patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). Here, limiting a mass of the already known transducer of Otto would not establish patentability, since it would only require scaling up or down the size of an already known apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide a mass for the transducer of Otto within a range of 2g-5g.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,341,948, patented on May 24, 2022 (Otto), in view of Yoshida et al., U.S. Publication No. 2007/0232373, published on October 4, 2007 (Yoshida).
As to Claim 19, Otto remains as applied above to Claim 18. Otto does not explicitly disclose that the electronic component includes a vibration-sensitive element, wherein the vibration-sensitive element is perpendicular to the vibration direction of the transducer. However, providing a vibration-sensitive element, such as a microphone in a mobile device, perpendicular to the vibration direction of a sound output transducer was well known. Yoshida teaches a mobile device that includes a vibration sensitive-element [112] that is perpendicular to the vibration direction of the transducer [111] (the microphone and speaker are mounted perpendicularly to prevent howling; para. 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide a vibration-sensitive element, such as a microphone, perpendicular to the vibration direction of the sound output transducer, in the loudspeaker of Otto, for the benefit of preventing howling feedback.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,341,948, patented on May 24, 2022 (Otto), in view of Marks et al., U.S. Publication No. 2023/0412715, effectively filed on November 8, 2020 (Marks).
As to Claim 22, Otto discloses an acoustic output device comprising a loudspeaker, wherein the loudspeaker includes: a housing, an electronic component, and a transducer [21b] wherein the housing forms a cavity accommodating the transducer and an air-conduction loudspeaker (the transducer forms an air-conduction loudspeaker built into a housing of a mobile device, which would inherently have an electronic component such as a microphone; col. 13, lines 36-55), and the transducer [21b] includes: a magnetic circuit system [6b], including a magnet assembly [11b] and a magnetic conductive cover [10b] (the cover [10b] is formed from soft iron; col. 11, line 36), the magnetic conductive cover [10b] being arranged at least partially around the magnet assembly [11b]; and a vibration plate, including a first vibration plate [13a’] and a second vibration plate [13a’’], the first vibration plate [13a’] and the second vibration plate [13a’’] being respectively distributed on both sides of the magnet assembly [11b] along a vibration direction of the magnet assembly [11b] (see Fig. 3), and being configured to elastically support the magnet assembly [11c] within the magnetic conductive cover [10b], wherein a resonance peak frequency of the transducer [21b] is less than 300 Hz (a rocking resonance frequency of 500 Hz is twice the peak excursion frequency, which would be 250 Hz; the peak excursion frequency corresponds to a peak resonance frequency; col. 4, lines 9-22).
Otto does not explicitly disclose that that the acoustic output device comprises a fixing component, wherein the fixing component is connected to the loudspeaker. However, providing a fixing component on a mobile device was well known in the art. Marks teaches a fixing component [20] connected to the mobile device [100] (para. 0052, see Figs. 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to incorporate the improvement of a fixing component on the loudspeaker of Otto, for the added feature of attachment to common objects in a user’s environment (Marks: para. 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 13-16 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: Claim 11 recites the unique features of at least one of the magnet, the magnetically conductive plate, and the magnetic conductive cover including multiple magnetic parts with different magnetization directions. Claim 13 recites the unique features of a count of coil windings along the radial direction of the transducer being an even number, so that an inlet position and an outlet position of the coil are located at a same position of the magnetic conductive cover. Claim 14 recites the unique features of a ratio of an axial height to a radial width of the first coil or the second coil being not less than 3.5. Claim 16 recites the unique features of an equivalent stiffness of the first vibration plate or the second vibration plate in any direction perpendicular to the vibration direction of the magnet assembly being greater than 4.7×10.sup.4 N/m. The closest prior art does not disclose or suggest such features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Robinson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3956. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fan Tsang, can be reached on (571) 272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RYAN ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694