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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The following Double Patenting Rejections are being maintained. See response to arguments below and the Double patent rejection in the Non-Final Rejection filed 3/19/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of Patent 12069462 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-11 and 13-15, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent 11395072 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Patent 11399234 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Patent 10911876 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 10117026 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 9402116 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 8891792 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Patent 11166094 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Patent 11818533 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Patent 11438689 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Patent 11336988 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of Patent 11736852 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11528561 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Patent 11611833 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11659335 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11659335 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Patent 12256209 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Patent 11343626 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Patent 11540066 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Patent 11375324 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Patent 11632636 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Patent 11418895 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11611834 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11575994 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11528562 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11601761 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11540057 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11716575 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11641551 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11638099 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11641552 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11483661 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11463814 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11665482 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11595760 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Patent 11716574 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Patent 12126980 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending application 18/902858 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
Claims 1, 4-11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending application 18/908766 in view of Park (JP 2007129384).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9-10, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (JP 2007129384) in view of Heuvel (US 2012/0286765).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches A vibration device in a speaker, comprising a vibration conductive plate (Park figure 1, vibrating ring 180) and a vibration board (Park figure 1, vibrating members 161 and 162), wherein the vibration conductive plate is physically connected with the vibration board (Park ¶0030, “vibrating ring 180 is fixed to the pair of vibrating members 160 with a central fixing portion 184 located substantially in the center thereof sandwiched between the connecting members 163 and 164 of the upper and lower vibrating members 161 and 162”), wherein a hollow pattern is configured on the vibration conductive plate (Park figure 1, ¶0029, vibration ring 180 with crescent-shaped through holes 181b), and an area of the hollow pattern is not less than an area of a non-hollow portion of the vibration conductive plate (Park figure 1, ¶0029, vibration ring 180 with crescent-shaped through holes 181b, which takes up most of the area); however does not explicitly teach vibrations generated by the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board have at least two resonance peaks, a frequency of at least one of the at least two resonance peaks being catchable with human ears and sounds are generated by the vibrations.
Heuvel teaches vibrations generated by the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board have at least two resonance peaks, a frequency of at least one of the at least two resonance peaks being catchable with human ears and sounds are generated by the vibrations (Heuvel figure 8 and ¶0102, “actuator 1440 has two resonance peaks 1810 and 1812” within frequency 100-10000Hz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Heuvel to improve the known vibration device of Park to achieve the predictable result of increasing the output in the lower frequency range (Heuvel ¶0056).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Heuvel teaches wherein the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board overlap each other (Park figure 2, vibration members 161-162 sandwich vibrating ring 180. ¶0030, “vibrating ring 180 is fixed to the pair of vibrating members 160 with a central fixing portion 184 located substantially in the center thereof sandwiched between the connecting members 163 and 164 of the upper and lower vibrating members 161 and 162”).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Heuvel teaches wherein the vibration conductive plate has a different thickness distribution (Park figure 2, vibration members 161 with protrusion 161a is thicker than vibrating ring 180).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Heuvel teaches wherein a frequency of at least one of the at least two resonance peaks is in a range of 80 Hz-18000 Hz (Heuvel figure 8 and ¶0102, “actuator 1440 has two resonance peaks 1810 and 1812” within frequency 100-10000Hz).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Heuvel teaches wherein the vibration conductive plate includes a first torus and at least two first rods, the at least two first rods converging to a center of the first torus (Park ¶0030, “vibrating ring 180 is fixed to the pair of vibrating members 160 with a central fixing portion 184 located substantially in the center thereof sandwiched between the connecting members 163 and 164 of the upper and lower vibrating members 161 and 162”).
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Heuvel teaches wherein the first torus is fixed on a magnetic component (Park figure 2, 180 is mounted on top of magnetic components 130-150).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches A speaker, comprising a vibration device having a vibration conductive plate (Park figure 1, vibrating ring 180) and a vibration board (Park figure 1, vibrating members 161 and 162), wherein the vibration conductive plate is physically connected with the vibration board (Park ¶0030, “vibrating ring 180 is fixed to the pair of vibrating members 160 with a central fixing portion 184 located substantially in the center thereof sandwiched between the connecting members 163 and 164 of the upper and lower vibrating members 161 and 162”), wherein a hollow pattern is configured on the vibration conductive plate (Park figure 1, ¶0029, vibration ring 180 with crescent-shaped through holes 181b), and an area of the hollow pattern is not less than an area of a non-hollow portion of the vibration conductive plate (Park figure 1, ¶0029, vibration ring 180 with crescent-shaped through holes 181b, which takes up most of the area), however does not explicitly teach vibrations generated by the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board have at least two resonance peaks, a frequency of at least one of the at least two resonance peaks being catchable with human ears, and sounds are generated by the vibrations.
Heuvel teaches vibrations generated by the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board have at least two resonance peaks, a frequency of at least one of the at least two resonance peaks being catchable with human ears, and sounds are generated by the vibrations (Heuvel figure 8 and ¶0102, “actuator 1440 has two resonance peaks 1810 and 1812” within frequency 100-10000Hz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Heuvel to improve the known vibration device of Park to achieve the predictable result of increasing the output in the lower frequency range (Heuvel ¶0056).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (JP 2007129384) in view of Heuvel (US 2012/0286765) in further view of Lee (US 2006/0165246).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Heuvel does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the vibration conductive plate is not less than 0.005 mm.
Lee teaches wherein a thickness of the vibration conductive plate is not less than 0.005 mm (Lee ¶0043, “The acoustic vibrating plate 14 which is made of beryllium copper has such a thin thickness of about 1 mm that it can have a certain elastic force”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Lee to improve the known vibration device of Park in view of Heuvel to achieve the predictable result of a smaller bone conduction device with reduced power consumption (Lee ¶0017).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Heuvel in further view of Lee teaches wherein a material of the vibration conductive plate includes at least one of: beryllium copper (Lee ¶0023), titanium alloy, polyethylene.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (JP 2007129384) in view of Heuvel (US 2012/0286765) in further view of Carazo (US 2007/0041595).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Heuvel does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the vibration conductive plate includes at least one of: single material or a composite material, the composite material including at least one of: glass fiber, carbon fiber, boron fiber, graphite fiber, graphene fiber, silicon carbide fiber, aramid fiber, glass fiber reinforced by unsaturated polyester and epoxy, or fiberglass comprising phenolic resin matrix.
Carazo teaches wherein a material of the vibration conductive plate includes at least one of: single material or a composite material, the composite material including at least one of: glass fiber, carbon fiber (Carazo ¶0036), boron fiber, graphite fiber, graphene fiber, silicon carbide fiber, aramid fiber, glass fiber reinforced by unsaturated polyester and epoxy, or fiberglass comprising phenolic resin matrix.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Carazo to improve the known vibration device of Park in view of Heuvel to achieve the predictable result of improved efficiency of the mechanical to electrical conversion (Carazo ¶0043).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (JP 2007129384) in view of Heuvel (US 2012/0286765) in further view of Choi (US 8213644).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Heuvel does not explicitly teach wherein the vibration board includes a second torus and at least two second rods, the at least two second rods converging to a center of the second torus.
Choi teaches wherein the vibration board includes a second torus and at least two second rods, the at least two second rods converging to a center of the second torus (Choi figure 1, tension plates 180, 130 and plate 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Choi to improve the known vibration device of Park in view of Heuvel to achieve the predictable result of reduced thickness of the vibrations device (Choi Col 2 lines 60-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 1) a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this office action and 2) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “wherein the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board have different stiffness coefficients” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Claims 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 1) a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this office action and 2) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “wherein a radius of the first torus is greater than a radius of the second torus” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Claims 14-17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 1) a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this office action and 2) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “a voice coil, wherein the voice coil is driven by the magnetic component and fixed on the second torus” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, In regards to the double patenting rejections made in Non-final Rejection filed 3/19/2026, Applicant argues on pages 3-8 of Remarks that the instant invention is patentably distinct from the cited references used in the double patenting rejection because “vibration generated have at least two resonance peaks” of claim 1 are intrinsically linked to the specific structural configuration of the vibration conductive plate. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 and 18 recites limitation “a hollow pattern is configured on the vibration conductive plate, and an area of the hollow pattern is not less than an area of a non-hollow portion of the vibration conductive plate,” but does not elaborate on how the hollow pattern and non-hollow portions affect the resonance peak and vibrations of said vibration conductive plate. Therefore, without the claimed function of the hollow pattern and non-hollow portions, it is unclear what they do for the device and hence these limitations remain an obvious design choice to the vibration conductive plate which are taught by Cited reference Park. Therefore, all Double Patenting Rejection are currently maintained. Examiner suggests adding limitations to distinguish how the hollow pattern and non-hollow portions affects the vibration/resonance peaks to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1 and 18, Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of Remarks that cited references Park in view of Heuvel does not teach “vibrations generated by the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board have at least two resonance peaks,” because Heuvel is teaches a frequency response curve measured using a skull simulator when the actuator 1440 was attached to the simulator and that Heuvel reflects the combined natural frequencies of the actuator together with the load (bone/tissue) instead of the inherent resonance peaks of the actuator itself originating from the structure of the vibration device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “vibrations generated by the vibration conductive plate and the vibration board have at least two resonance peaks,” and with BRI, the vibrations detected on the skull or skull simulator is also generated by a bone conduction transducer (Heuvel ¶0102, actuator 1440) since the bone conduction transducer is meant to vibrate the bone. Heuvel ¶0102 clearly states that using the skull simulator, “actuator 1440 has two resonance peaks 1810 and 1812,” which examiner believes to be 1816 and 1812 in the figure 18 of Heuvel. Therefore, the claim does not recite limitation equating to “the frequencies of any inherent resonance peaks of the actuator itself,” nor what aspect of structure of the vibration conductive plate and vibration board contributes to the resonance peaks. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner suggests adding limitations to distinguish how the modified structure of hollow patterns and non-hollow portions affects the vibration/resonance peaks of the vibration device. The arguments are not persuasive and the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 extension fee 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 NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights