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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites "an end of the vibration transmission column", which depends on claim 18 and also recites "an end of the vibration transmission column". It is unclear whether "an end of the vibration transmission column" refers to the same end of the vibration transmission column. If it refers to the same end of the vibration transmission column, then "an end of the vibration transmission column" in claim 20 should be amended to "the end of the vibration transmission column".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerici Beltrami (US 20180279053 A1, hereinafter “Clerici Beltrami”).
Regarding claim 1, Clerici Beltrami teaches a speaker, comprising: (see [0053], fig. 5: MEMS loudspeaker)
a driving unit configured to generate vibrations under the drive of an electrical signal; (see fig. 1, 5, [0053]-[0055, [0063]]: multi-layer piezoelectric structure 3 … acts as an actuator structure, and cantilever 3a, 3b)
a vibrating unit; --(see [0056]: membrane 22)
a vibration transmission part, the vibration transmission part being connected to the driving unit and the vibrating unit, and configured to transmit the vibrations to the vibrating unit to produce sound radiated outwardly; (see [0070], fig. 5: membrane frame 23 in its edge area in the z-direction or along the lifting axis in an oscillating manner, structure 3 can deflect fastening section 5 with coupling element 21 along lifting axis.)
and a housing configured to accommodate the driving unit, the vibrating unit, and the vibration transmission part, (see [0064], fig. 5: housing 30, which is formed from a membrane frame 23 ... a second printed circuit board unit 16 or a housing part 19)
wherein the driving unit includes a piezoelectric beam, (see fig.1., [0054]-[0055]: piezoelectric structure 3, structure 3a, 3b formed as a cantilever)
the housing encloses a cavity, (see fig. 5, [0065]: cavity 24)
a portion of the piezoelectric beam is fixedly connected to the housing to form a fixed region, (see fig. 1, [0055]: anchor section 32a, 32b)
and another portion of the piezoelectric beam is suspended over the cavity to form a suspended region, (see fig. 1, 5, [0055]: circuit board unit 1, structure 3a, 3b formed as a cantilever can be deflected)
the suspended region has a first projection area in a vibration direction of the piezoelectric beam, (see fig. 1: upper surface of structure 3a, 3b has first projection area)
the cavity has a second projection area in the vibration direction of the piezoelectric beam, (see fig. 5: upper surface of second printed circuit board unit 16 has second projection area)
Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach a ratio of the first projection area to the second projection area is in a range of 0.35 to 0.92.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for the ratio of the first projection area to the second projection area is a range of 0.35 to 0.92 based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced, and by implementing this, the driving force of the driving unit may be effectively increased to enhance the output of the speaker.
Regarding claim 2, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the square root of a ratio of a thickness of the piezoelectric beam to the square of a length of the suspended region is in a range of 0.01 to 0.2.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for the square root of a ratio of a thickness of the piezoelectric beam to the square of a length of the suspended region is in a range of 0.01 to 0.2 based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced because staying in this range will improve the output of the speaker in various frequency ranges in the low to high frequencies.
Regarding claim 3, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the piezoelectric beam has at least two different widths at different positions along an extending direction of the piezoelectric beam.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for the square root of a ratio of a thickness of the piezoelectric beam to the square of a length of the suspended region is in a range of 0.01 to 0.2 based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced because staying in this range will improve the output of the speaker in various frequency ranges in the low to high frequencies.
Regarding claim 4, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the at least two different widths to a maximum width in the at least two different widths is in a range of 0.5 to 0.99.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement maximum width in the at least two different widths is in a range of 0.5 to 0.99 based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced because staying in this range will improve the output of the speaker in various frequency ranges in the low to high frequencies.
Regarding claim 18, Clerici Beltrami teaches the vibration transmission part includes a coupling elastic structure and a vibration transmission column, the driving unit is connected to an end of the vibration transmission column through the coupling elastic structure, and another end of the vibration transmission column is connected to the vibrating unit to transmit the vibrations, wherein see fig. 1, 5: flexible elastic connecting elements 4a-4d, fastening section 5)
Clerici Beltrami is silent to
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where a width Lo and a thickness ho of the coupling elastic structure, a length Lp of the suspended region, and a thickness h of the piezoelectric beam satisfy: ζ=hoLo2hLp2, and ζ is not less than 0.35 and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 19, Clerici Beltrami teaches a projection of the coupling elastic structure along a vibration direction of the piezoelectric beam has at least one bending structure. (see fig. 1, 5: flexible elastic connecting elements 4a-4d)
Regarding claim 20, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach an end of the vibration transmission column is provided with a relief groove.
However, official notice is taken that a relief grove is a simple structure well known in the art to prevent the diaphragm from interfering with other elements. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have applied a relief groove that will keep the diaphragm in line, preventing interference with other elements.
Claim(s) 5-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerici Beltrami (US 20180279053 A1, hereinafter “Clerici Beltrami”) in view of Stoppel (US 20170325030 A1, hereinafter “Stoppel”).
Regarding claim 5, Clerici Beltrami teaches the piezoelectric beam includes a piezoelectric layer and an electrode layer, the piezoelectric layer is configured to see fig. 11-12, [0036], [0075]-[0077]: support layer 14 is formed as an electrode layer 15 and is electrically coupled directly to the piezo layer 13)
Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the piezoelectric layer to deform in response to the electrical signal.
However, Stoppel teaches the piezoelectric layer to deform in response to the electrical signal. (see [0185]-[0186]: application of an electric voltage, the piezoelectric material deforms and causes bending of the individual actuator elements)
Clerici Beltrami and Stoppel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of MEMS and vibration between the piezoelectric layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of a deformation in response to an electrical signal from Stoppel to the structure of Clerici Beltrami in order for optimize free motion and vibration between the piezoelectric layer to achieve high sound pressure level output.
Regarding claim 6, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach an end of the piezoelectric beam opposite to the fixed region in the extending direction of the piezoelectric beam is connected to the vibration transmission part, and a distance from a center of the electrode layer to the fixed region is less than a distance from the center of the electrode layer to the end of the piezoelectric beam that is connected to the vibration transmission part.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such standard structure of a distance from a center of the electrode layer to the fixed region is less than a distance from the center of the electrode layer to the end of the piezoelectric beam that is connected to the vibration transmission part and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 7, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach a ratio of a length of the electrode layer covering the suspended region to a length of the suspended region in the extending direction of the piezoelectric beam is in a range of 0.1 to 0.9.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where the ratio of a length of the electrode layer covering the suspended region to a length of the suspended region in the extending direction of the piezoelectric beam is in a range of 0.1 to 0.9 and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 8, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach a ratio of a width of the electrode layer covering the suspended region to a width of the suspended region is in a range of 0.3 to 1.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where the ratio of a width of the electrode layer covering the suspended region to a width of the suspended region is in a range of 0.3 to 1 and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 9, Clerici Beltrami teaches the vibration transmission part includes a vibration transmission column and a coupling elastic structure, the driving unit is connected to an end of the vibration transmission column through the coupling elastic structure, and another end of the vibration transmission column is connected to the vibrating unit to transmit the vibrations; (see fig. 1, [0022], [0055]: flexible elastic connecting elements 4a-4d, fastening section 5)
Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the electrode layer includes a first region near the fixed region and a second region near the coupling elastic structure, wherein a width of the first region is greater than a width of the second region.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where a width of the first region is greater than a width of the second region and no unexpected result is produced in order for effectively modulating the vibration mode of the piezoelectric beam.
Regarding claim 10, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the first region and the second region are rectangular electrodes, and a ratio of the width of the second region to a width of the suspended region is in a range of 0.01 to 0.89.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where the first region and the second region are rectangular electrodes, and the ratio of the width of the second region to a width of the suspended region is in a range of 0.01 to 0.89 and no unexpected result is produced in order for effectively modulating the vibration mode of the piezoelectric beam.
Regarding claim 11, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the first region is a rectangular electrode and the second region is a trapezoidal electrode, a ratio of a length of the rectangular electrode to a length of the suspended region is in a range of 0.05 to 0.9.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where the first region is a rectangular electrode and the second region is a trapezoidal electrode, a ratio of a length of the rectangular electrode to a length of the suspended region is in a range of 0.05 to 0.9 and no unexpected result is produced in order for effectively modulating the vibration mode of the piezoelectric beam.
Regarding claim 12, Clerici Beltrami teaches the vibration transmission part includes a vibration transmission column and a coupling elastic structure, the driving unit is connected to an end of the vibration transmission column through the coupling elastic structure, and another end of the vibration transmission column is connected to the vibrating unit to transmit the vibrations; (see fig. 1, [0022], [0055]: flexible elastic connecting elements 4a-4d, fastening section 5)
and the electrode layer includes a first region near the fixed region, a second region near the coupling elastic structure, and a third region connecting the first region and the second region, wherein a width of the third region is smaller than a width of the first region and a width of the second region.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where a third region connecting the first region and the second region, wherein a width of the third region is smaller than a width of the first region and a width of the second region and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 13, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach a ratio of a length of the second region to a length of the suspended region is in a range of 0.1 to 0.8, or a ratio of the width of the second region to a width of the suspended region is in a range of 0.01 to 0.89.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where a ratio of a length of the second region to a length of the suspended region is in a range of 0.1 to 0.8, or a ratio of the width of the second region to a width of the suspended region is in a range of 0.01 to 0.89 and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 14, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the piezoelectric beam includes a plurality of piezoelectric layers configured to deform in response to the electrical signal, the deformation of the plurality of piezoelectric layers driving the piezoelectric beam to generate the vibrations, and two lead structures are provided on a side of the piezoelectric beam, wherein one lead structure is electrically connected to a plurality of positive electrode layers in the plurality of piezoelectric layers, and another lead structure is electrically connected to a plurality of negative electrode layers in the plurality of piezoelectric layers, wherein the two lead structures are staggered in a width direction of the piezoelectric beam, and a difference between half a width of the piezoelectric beam and a width of a portion of any one of the plurality of positive electrode layers or the plurality of negative electrode layers that covers the fixed region is not less than 5 μm.
However, Stoppel teaches the piezoelectric beam includes a plurality of piezoelectric layers configured to deform in response to the electrical signal, the deformation of the plurality of piezoelectric layers driving the piezoelectric beam to generate the vibrations, and two lead structures are provided on a side of the piezoelectric beam, wherein one lead structure is electrically connected to a plurality of positive electrode layers in the plurality of piezoelectric layers, and another lead structure is electrically connected to a plurality of negative electrode layers in the plurality of piezoelectric layers, wherein the two lead structures are staggered in a width direction of the piezoelectric beam, and a see fig. 3B-3D, [0185]-[0186]: By application of an electric voltage, the piezoelectric material deforms and causes bending of the individual actuator elements 106_1 to 106_n, via which the stroke body, or the stroke structure, 104 is moved out of the plane in the upward or downward direction. While large deflections can only be implemented, in principle, via actuators that are as long and thin-layered as possible, actuators for large forces tend to use short lengths. )
Clerici Beltrami and Stoppel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of MEMS and vibration between the piezoelectric layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of a deformation in response to an electrical signal from Stoppel to the structure of Clerici Beltrami in order for optimize free motion and vibration between the piezoelectric layer to achieve high sound pressure level output.
Clerici Beltrami in view of Stoppel does not teach the difference between half a width of the piezoelectric beam and a width of a portion of any one of the plurality of positive electrode layers or the plurality of negative electrode layers that covers the fixed region is not less than 5 μm.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where the difference between half a width of the piezoelectric beam and a width of a portion of any one of the plurality of positive electrode layers or the plurality of negative electrode layers that covers the fixed region is not less than 5 μm because this would ensure that the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes do not conduct and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 15, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach the vibrating unit includes: a diaphragm, including a fixing part, a central part, and a corrugation part, wherein the diaphragm is connected to the housing via the fixing part, the corrugation part is located between the fixing part and the central part; and a central reinforcing part configured to be connected to at least a portion of the central part to reinforce vibrations of the diaphragm, wherein the central part has a suspended region that is not covered by the central reinforcing part, the suspended region of the central part has a first area, the central part has a second area, and a ratio of the first area to the second area is in a range of 0.01 to 0.35.
Stoppel teaches the vibrating unit includes: a diaphragm, including a fixing part, a central part, and a corrugation part, wherein the diaphragm is connected to the housing via the fixing part, the corrugation part is located between the fixing part and the central part; (see [0190]-[0193]: diaphragm 102 with a plurality of regions that include a fixed, central and corrugation aspect)
Clerici Beltrami and Stoppel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of MEMS and vibration between the piezoelectric layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of a diaphragm is connected to the housing via the fixing part, the corrugation part is located between the fixing part and the central part from Stoppel to the structure of Clerici Beltrami in order to secure and efficiently apply the diaphragm to the membrane.
Clerici Beltrami in view of Stoppel does not teach a central reinforcing part configured to be connected to at least a portion of the central part to reinforce vibrations of the diaphragm, wherein the central part has a suspended region that is not covered by the central reinforcing part, the suspended region of the central part has a first area, the central part has a second area, and a ratio of the first area to the second area is in a range of 0.01 to 0.35.
However, official notice is taken that a reinforcing parts for diaphragms are well known in the art, thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have applied these reinforcing plates in order to enhance the output of the speaker.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where a ratio of the first area to the second area is in a range of 0.01 to 0.35 and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 16, Clerici Beltrami does not explicitly teach one or more openings are provided on the central reinforcing part, and a ratio of an area of the one or more openings to an area of the central reinforcing part is in a range of 0.01 to 0.35.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where one or more openings are provided on the central reinforcing part, and a ratio of an area of the one or more openings to an area of the central reinforcing part is in a range of 0.01 to 0.35 and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 17, Clerici Beltrami does not teach a stiffness of the central reinforcing part gradually decreases from a middle of the central reinforcing part towards two ends of the central reinforcing part along a length direction of the central reinforcing part.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement where one or more openings are provided on the central reinforcing part, and a ratio of an area of the one or more openings to an area of the central reinforcing part is in a range of 0.01 to 0.35 in order to adjust frequency response of the speaker at high frequencies and no unexpected result is produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695