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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
This Office action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 7/9/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2024, 4/25/2025, 5/23/2025, 9/5/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12 (hereinafter instant claims 1, 12) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 (hereinafter copending claim 16) of copending Application No. 18/764,348. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claims 1, 12: Copending claims 16 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 12. Hence, instant claims 1, 12 are generic to the species of invention covered by copending claims 16. Therefore, instant claims 1, 12 are anticipated by copending claims 16 and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant "application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims").
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 (hereinafter instant claims 1) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 (hereinafter copending claim 21) of copending Application No. 18/769,372. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claims 1: Copending claims 21 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1. Hence, instant claims 1 are generic to the species of invention covered by copending claims 21. Therefore, instant claims 1 are anticipated by copending claims 21 and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant "application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims").
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 12 would be allowable if the Double Patenting rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Claims 2-11, 13-17 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.
Claims 18, 19, 22 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations of the claim because:
The closest prior art of record, Shi et al. (WO 2022/143047 using an English machine translation), fails to teach the following combination of limitations:
a transducer, comprising:
a magnetic circuit system including a magnet assembly and a magnetic conductive cover, the magnetic conductive cover being arranged at least partially around the magnet assembly; and
a vibration plate, including a first vibration plate and a second vibration plate, the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate being respectively distributed on both sides of the magnet assembly along a vibration direction of the magnet assembly, and being configured to elastically support the magnet assembly, wherein 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 is greater than 4.7 x 104 N/m.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious the combination of the above limitations that Shi fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
In regard to claim 18, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations of the claim because:
The closest prior art of record, Shi, fails to teach the following combination of limitations:
a loudspeaker, comprising a housing, an electronic component, and a transducer, wherein the housing forms a cavity accommodating the transducer and the electronic component, and the transducer includes:
a magnetic circuit system including a magnet assembly and a magnetic conductive cover, the magnetic conductive cover being arranged at least partially around the magnet assembly; and
a vibration plate, including a first vibration plate and a second vibration plate, the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate being respectively distributed on both sides of the magnet assembly along a vibration direction of the magnet assemblv, and being configured to elastically support the magnet assemblv, wherein 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 is greater than 4.7 x 104 N/m.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious the combination of the above limitations that Shi fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
In regard to claim 22, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations of the claim because:
The closest prior art of record, Shi fails to teach the following combination of limitations:
an acoustic output device, comprising a fixing component and a loudspeaker, wherein the fixing component is connected to the loudspeaker, and the loudspeaker includes:
a housing, an electronic component, and a transducer, wherein the housing forms a cavity accommodating the transducer and the electronic component, and the transducer includes:
a magnetic circuit system including a magnet assembly and a magnetic conductive cover, the magnetic conductive cover being arranged at least partially around the magnet assembly; and
a vibration plate, including a first vibration plate and a second vibration plate, the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate being respectively distributed on both sides of the magnet assembly along a vibration direction of the magnet assembly, and being configured to elastically support the magnet assembly, wherein 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 is greater than 4.7 x 104 N/m.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious the combination of the above limitations that Shi fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Johannsen (WO 2016/155812) teaches a magnetic circuit (308, 309, 311) surrounded by a magnetic cover (302-305 and 316), and vibration plates (104/314 and 112/315) on both sides of the magnetic circuit (Figs 1, 3).
Calvet et al. (US 7990628) teaches a flexure with a spring rate low in the z-direction, and 7.0 x 104 N/m in all other directions in order to facilitate desired motion along z-axis (detx11,27, col. 2, lines 48-57 and col. 4, lines 18-23), but it is for a camera lens for focusing rather than a transducer for vibrating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692