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
Introduction
This action responds to Applicant elects group I ( 1, claims 1-7 and 19) with traverse filed on 06-30-2026. Claim 7 has been amended and claims 8-18 and 20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a (2) as being anticipated by Ye (US 2022/0216810).
Consider Claim 1, Ye teaches a method for tuning a spring mass resonator of a distributed mode loudspeaker in a mobile computing device, the mobile computing device comprising a display to which the spring mass resonator is affixed(see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0058]-[0070]), the method comprising
:modifying(see fig. 1(40)) at least one component of the spring mass resonator(see fig. 1(10)) to increase a frequency response of the display within at least a portion of a frequency range between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz (see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]}.
Consider Claims 2 and 4, Ye teaches the method wherein modifying the at least one component of the spring mass resonator comprises modifying the at least one component to cause a radiated sound pressure level of the distributed mode loudspeaker to continually increase within the frequency range between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz (see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]} and the method wherein modifying the at least one component of the spring mass resonator comprises tuning the spring mass resonator from an untuned condition to a tuned condition, wherein in the untuned condition an untuned slope of a radiated sound pressure level of the distributed mode loudspeaker changes from a positive slope at a first frequency less than 350 Hz. to a negative slope at a second frequency between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz., and wherein in the tuned condition a tuned slope of the radiated sound pressure level of the distributed mode loudspeaker remains positive from the first frequency less than 350 Hz. to the second frequency between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz(see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]}.
Consider Claims 5 and 6, Ye teaches the method wherein modifying the at least one component of the spring mass resonator comprises adjusting a stiffness of a spring of the spring mass resonator(see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]}; and the method wherein modifying the at least one component of the spring mass resonator comprises adjusting a mass of a mass component of the spring mass resonator(see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]}.
Consider Claims 7 and 19, Ye teaches the method further comprising modifying the at least one component of the spring mass resonator to move a peak frequency of a fundamental mode of the display from an untuned frequency to a tuned frequency higher than the untuned frequency(see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]}, and the method wherein modifying the at least one component of the spring mass resonator comprises adjusting a stiffness of a spring of the spring mass resonator and adjusting a mass of a mass component of the spring mass resonator(see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ye .(US 2022/0216810).
Consider Claim 3, Ye teaches the method wherein the computing device comprises a chassis comprising a rear surface and an internal component between the rear surface and the display, wherein an upper surface of the internal component and a lower surface of the display define an air gap having a width between 0.1 mm and 0.6 mm, the air gap creating an air spring impedance that resists movement of the display(see figs. 1, 4-17 and paragraphs[0071]-[0092]); but Ye fails to disclose a lower surface of the display define an air gap having a width between 0.1 mm and 0.6 mm.
Since, selecting the device chassis to have an air gap with a width between 0.1 and 0.6 mm is a normal design procedure for a mobile phone or other mobile device is well known in the art(the official notice is taken by the examiner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the computing device as taught by Ye could have used a lower surface of the display define an air gap having a width between 0.1 mm and 0.6 mm in the system as claimed in order to provide design requirements in various environments.
Election/Restrictions
10. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 8-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 06-30-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that restriction is not proper. This is not found persuasive because
I. Claims 1-7 and 19, drawn to A method for tuning a spring mass resonator of a distributed mode loudspeaker in a mobile computing device, the mobile computing device comprising a display to which the spring mass resonator is affixed, the method comprising: modifying at least one component of the spring mass resonator to increase a frequency response of the display within at least a portion of a frequency range between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz.
device, so that corresponding abnormal sound analysis processes are performed,
wherein the vibration audio unit signals are arranged in serial sequence and formed
as the vibration audio signal; classified in H04R 1/22.CPC.
II. Claims 8-13 and 20, drawn to A method of manufacturing a mobile computing device, the mobile computing device comprising a distributed mode loudspeaker that comprises a spring mass resonator affixed to a display of the mobile computing device, a chassis comprising a rear surface, and an internal component between the rear surface and the display, the method comprising: configuring the internal component and the display to define an air gap having a width of between 0.1 mm and 0.6 mm; and modifying at least one component of the spring mass resonator to increase a frequency response of the display within at least a portion of a frequency range between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz; classified in B33Y 80/0013.CPC.
III. Claims 14-18, drawn to a mobile computing device comprising: a distributed mode loudspeaker that comprises a spring mass resonator affixed to a display of the mobile computing device, a chassis comprising a rear surface, and an internal component between the rear surface and the display, wherein the internal component and the display are spaced apart to define an air gap having a width of between 0.1 mm and 0.6 mm; and at least one component of the spring mass resonator is configured to operatively increase a frequency response of the display within at least a portion of a frequency range between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz; classified in H04R 2499/15.CPC.
Inventions Group I, Group II and Group III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination in Group I has modifying at least one component of the spring mass resonator to increase a frequency response of the display within at least a portion of a frequency range between 350 Hz. and 700 Hz.; and subcombination in Group II has a method of manufacturing a mobile computing device, the mobile computing device comprising a distributed mode loudspeaker that comprises a spring mass resonator affixed to a display of the mobile computing device, a chassis comprising a rear surface, and an internal component between the rear surface and the display,; and subcombination in Group III has a chassis comprising a rear surface, and an internal component between the rear surface and the display, wherein the internal component and the display are spaced apart to define an air gap having a width of between 0.1 mm and 0.6 mm. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claims depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
5. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
6. Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and have acquired a separate status in the art as shown by their different classification, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Gomes et. al. (US PAT. 10,805,714) is cited to show other related the TUNING SPRING MASS RESONATOR OF LOUDSPEAKER IN MOBILE DEVICE.
12. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____(explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Lao,Lun-See whose telephone number is (571) 272-7501 The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 to 5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Nguyen Duc M(SPE), can be reached on (571) 272-7503.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/LUN-SEE LAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691 US Patent and Trademark Office
Knox
571-272-7501
Date 07-15-2026
Prosecution Insights