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 Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: The language in claim 2 “each have a roughness equal to or less than a predetermined roughness” and similar language of claim 3 is given a broad interpretation since no values of roughness are being claimed and since the term “roughness” is subjective.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al., WO 2021/117575 A1, cited by applicant. See machine translation.
Re claim 1: Takahashi et al. teaches a sound output device (see figure 1) comprising:
a member (such as frame portions 12a, 12b) to be vibrated that outputs sound to a space;
a vibration mechanism (12) that vibrates the member to be vibrated; and
a transmission member (15) that transmits vibration of the vibration mechanism to the member to be vibrated, wherein
the vibration mechanism includes:
an actuator (17) that generates the vibration along a predetermined vibration axis (V); and
an abutment member (18) that is provided near the transmission member in an axial direction of the vibration axis of the actuator to transmit the vibration generated by the actuator to the transmission member (see figures 2A, 2B), and
the transmission member includes:
a first end portion that makes contact with the abutment member (right side of protruding portion of member (15) as depicted in figures (2A, 2B); and
a second end portion (left side protruding portion of member (15) as depicted in figures (2A, 2B) that makes contact with the member to be vibrated.
Re claim 2: Takahashi et al. teaches that the vibration mechanism includes
a support member (19) that supports the actuator, and
the actuator has a second flat surface (end portion located the left side of the actuator, figure 2B) on a side opposite from a first flat surface (end portion located the right side of the actuator, figure 2B) making contact with the abutment member, the second flat surface makes contact with the support member (figure 2B), and the first flat surface and the second flat surface each have a roughness equal to or less than a predetermined roughness (note that actuator member is made of a material that inherently has a roughness with this roughness is equal to or less than a predetermined roughness).
Re claim 3: note flat surface of the first end portion inherently has a roughness with this roughness is equal to or less than a predetermined roughness. Also note that the abutment member has an end portion that is processed into a spherical shape (see figures 2A, 2B)
Re claim 5: as seen in figure 2A, 2B transmission member (15) is plate shaped, with each end portion having a different width.
Re claim 8: see use of urging member (20), figures 2A, 2B operating as set forth
Re claim 11: note that the abutment member (18) can be made of a brass material in which the transmission member is not limited to that material.
Re claim 12: See figure 1 in which a frame (11) can be vibrated and in which this frame supports display panel (10)
Re claim 13: See paragraph [0034] of machine translation.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., WO 2021/117575 A1, cited by applicant in view of Kazumasa (WO 2021149517 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claim 4: the teaching of Takahashi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Takahashi et al. however does not teach that the second end portion is a curved surface. Kazumasa teaches in a similar environment that curved end portions of a second end portion can be used (see figure 4, element 121 and figure 15, element 2211) providing an alternative shape of a member that performs the same function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate curved shaped end portions as taught in Kazumasa into the arrangement of Takahashi et al. to predictably provide an alternative shape of a member that performs the same function. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9-10 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 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed sound output device including those features as provided in claim 1 and in combination wherein in the transmission member, the second end portion is positioned at a place different from that on an axis of the vibration axis as set forth in claim 6 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 7 depend upon those features of claim 6/1. The claimed sound output device including those features as provided in claim 8/2/1 and in combination with a cushion member is provided between the first end portion of the transmission member and an end portion of a cover member near the transmission member, the support member being stored in the cover member, and
the transmission member and the abutment member are separated from each other by the cushion member while the abutment member is not urged by the urging member, and are brought into contact with each other by deformation of the cushion member when the abutment member is urged by the urging member as set forth in claim 9 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed sound output device including those features as provided in claim 1 and in combination wherein the transmission member on a side of the second end portion is held at the member to be vibrated by a flexible member as set forth in claim 10 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Re claim 14: the teaching of Takahashi et al. as discussed above is considered to be the closest art of record. Takahashi et al. does not teach a transmission member that includes in combination a side surface that makes contact with the abutment member; and a plurality of end portions that makes contact with the plurality of members to be vibrated as set forth in claim 14. The limitations of claims 15-20 depend upon those features of claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no transmission member in Takahashi et al. that is distinct from the member to be vibrated but instead that the member being vibrated is directly vibrated by the vibration member. Examiner does not agree with this argument since the claim language is not limited to a distinct element. Note that claim 1 is not limited to a transmission member that is distinct/independent from the member being vibrated. As, presently set forth, the transmission member is satisfied by that portion (protruding portion of member (15) as depicted for example in figure 2A. Note that the claimed second end portion is satisfied by the left side of protrusion portion of (15) that is integral with the member being vibrated. If these argued features were added to claim 1, then the arrangement would define over the applied reference(s) as currently used in the rejection but would require an updated search to determine the patentability of such arrangement.
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 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 ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 8/26/26
Prosecution Insights