DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruiter (US 2010/0086151).
Regarding claim 1, Ruiter discloses an electroacoustic transducer (piezoelectric speaker of Figs. 1-6) comprising: a vibration plate (vibration plate 22, Figs. 2A, 2B); and a vibrator group consisting of a plurality of piezoelectric vibrators arranged on one surface of the vibration plate (vibrator group formed of piezo element 24, unstructured electrode 28, a plurality of segments 30 of the segmented electrode 36 on one surface of vibration plate 22, Figs. 2A, 2B), wherein the plurality of piezoelectric vibrators each belong to any one of a first group to an n-th group (group a to group c of piezoelectric vibrators, Figs. 2A, 2B, 4, [0037], [0038]), an upper limit frequency of a frequency band of an input signal input to the piezoelectric vibrator is different for each group, and in a case where upper limit frequencies for each group are denoted by f1 to fn, the upper limit frequencies gradually decrease from the upper limit frequency f1 in the first group to the upper limit frequency fn in the n-th group (low frequencies (<4.5 kHz) transmitted to electrode segments 30a+30b+30c, resulting in actuation of parts 32a+32b+32c of piezoelectric element, mid frequencies (4.5-8kHz) transmitted only to segments 30a+30b, resulting in actuation of parts 32a+32b and high frequencies (>8 kHz) transmitted only to segment 30a, resulting in actuation of part 32a, Fig. 4, [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Ruiter discloses wherein, in a case where the number of the piezoelectric vibrators belonging to each group is denoted by N1 to Nn, the number of the piezoelectric vibrators in each group from the number N1 of the piezoelectric vibrators in the first group to the number Nn of the piezoelectric vibrators in the n-th group satisfies N1 ≤ N2 ≤ N3 ≤ ... ≤ Nn (number of piezoelectric vibrators in each group from group a to group c is one, therefore as each group increases in N, so does N number of piezoelectric vibrators, Figs. 2A-4).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Ruiter discloses wherein the upper limit frequency f1 in the first group is 15 kHz or more (seeing how group a is made to emit high frequencies (>8 kHz) an upper limit >8 kHz would reach a range of 15 kHz or more, Fig. 4, [0038]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ruiter discloses wherein the piezoelectric vibrator has a piezoelectric film which includes a piezoelectric layer and electrode layers provided on both surfaces of the piezoelectric layer (piezoelectric element 24 with electrode layer 28 and segmented electrode 26 provided on both surfaces of piezoelectric element layer 24, Fig. 2a, [0018]).
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiter (US 2010/0086151) in view of Fujise et al. (US 2012/0140969) herein Fujise.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, while Ruiter does not specifically teach wherein the electroacoustic transducer has two vibrator groups, and the two vibrator groups are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center line of the vibration plate in a left-right direction, it is well known in the art to have a speaker array utilizing two vibrator groups wherein the two vibrator groups are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center line of the vibration plate in a left-right direction as demonstrated by Fujise (piezoelectric speakers 202a and 202c which are disposed symmetrically with respect to a center line of the vibration plate in a left-right direction, Fujise: Figs. 4, 9, [0115]-[0118], [0138]-[0143]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electroacoustic transducer of Ruiter to incorporate two vibrator groups wherein the two vibrator groups are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center line of the vibration plate in a left-right direction as demonstrated by Fujise in order to reduce turbulence of acoustic waves while improving the effective directivity of the acoustic waves (Fujise: [0135).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiter (US 2010/0086151) in view of Fujise et al. (US 2012/0140969) herein Fujise and Miyoshi (US 2021/0400395).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, while the combination of Ruiter and Fujise do not specifically teach werein the piezoelectric layer consists of a polymer-based piezoelectric composite material containing piezoelectric particles in a matrix containing a polymer material, it is well known in the art to have a piezoelectric layer consist of a polymer-based piezoelectric composite material containing piezoelectric particles in a matrix containing a polymer material as demonstrated by Miyoshi (polymer-based piezoelectric composite material containing piezoelectric particles in a matrix, Miyoshi: [0020], [0066], [0109], Figs. 2, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric layer of Ruiter and Fujise to consist of a polymer-based piezoelectric composite material containing piezoelectric particles in a matrix containing a polymer material as demonstrated by Miyoshi in order to allow an electroacoustic transducer have flexibility high enough to cope with various usages and situations (Miyoshi: [0012]).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, while the combination of Ruiter and Fujise does not specifically teach wherein, in the piezoelectric vibrator, a plurality of layers of the piezoelectric film are laminated by folding the piezoelectric film one or more times, it is well known in the art to have wherein, in the piezoelectric vibrator, a plurality of layers of the piezoelectric film are laminated by folding the piezoelectric film one or more times as demonstrated by Miyoshi (piezoelectric films are laminated and folded one or more times, Miyoshi: [0023], [0025], [0065], [0067], [0107], Figs. 8, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric vibrator of Ruiter and Fujise to have wherein, in the piezoelectric vibrator, a plurality of layers of the piezoelectric film are laminated by folding the piezoelectric film one or more times as demonstrated by Miyoshi in order to allow an electroacoustic transducer have flexibility high enough to cope with various usages and situations (Miyoshi: [0012]).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiter (US 2010/0086151)
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Ruiter discloses wherein outer peripheral edges of two adjacent piezoelectric vibrators are in a parallel relationship (outer peripheral edges of two adjacent piezoelectric vibrators are in a parallel relationship, Figs. 6b-6f), but lacks wherein an interval between the outer peripheral edges is 40 mm or less.
Nevertheless, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have wherein an interval between the outer peripheral edges is 40 mm or less, since applicant has not disclosed that having such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with dimension of Ruiter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interval between the outer peripheral edges of Ruiter to be 40mm or less in order to make a more compact vibratory package to fit smaller electronic devices.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiter (US 2010/0086151) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2016-140060) herein Sato.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, while Ruiter does not specifically teach wherein the vibration plate is curved in an arrangement direction of the plurality of piezoelectric vibrators of the vibrator group. It is well known in the art to have a vibration plate be curved in an arrangement direction of the plurality of piezoelectric vibrators of the vibrator group as demonstrated by Sato (curved vibration plate, Sato: [0177], [0178], Figs. 26-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibration plate to be curved in an arrangement direction of the plurality of piezoelectric vibrators of the vibrator group as demonstrated by Sato in order to make an even thinner more compact actuator to fit smaller electronic devices (Sato: [0013]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 19 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 PM.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7503. 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.
/SEAN H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights