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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/11/25 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/11/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
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) 1-8, 11-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chunjiao et al. (CN 114513729A). See also, the provided machine translation of Chunjiao et al.
Re claim 1: Chunjiao et al. teaches an electroacoustic transducer (figure 55) comprising:
a diaphragm (320) extending in an extending direction (direction into the page as depicted);
a driver (310):
extending in the extending direction;
opposed to the diaphragm in an opposing direction orthogonal to the extending direction; and
including multiple driving sources (at least two driving sources (310) as depicted in figure 55) to vibrate the diaphragm in the opposing direction;
a support (200):
at a center of the multiple driving sources in the extending direction to support the driver (see figure 55); and
in a region where the diaphragm is disposed in the extending direction; and
a coupler (400) coupling the diaphragm and the driver in the opposing direction, each of the multiple driving sources of the driver extending from the support in the extending direction (see figure 55).
Re claim 2: see arrangement of figure 55 when taken in view of figure 28 teaches that the support (200) is dimensional and extends in an extending direction.
Re claim 3: as seen from figure 55 the center of driving sources (310) is aligned with the center of diaphragm (320)
Re claim 4: see figure 55 in which a coupler (400) is disposed at the end of the diaphragm (320) in an extending direction (into the page as depicted)
Re claim 5: see figure 55 in which a coupler (400) is disposed at the end of the driver (310) in an extending direction (into the page as depicted)
Re claim 6: as see from figure 55 the multiple driving sources (310) are line-symmetrical with respect to support (200)
Re claim 7: as seen from figure 11 the diving sources can be point-symmetrical with respect to the support as set forth
Re claim 8: as seen from figure 55, hiving at least two driving sources (310) satisfies as broadly set forth the claimed pairs of driving sources each being supported by the support
Re claim 11: as seen from figure 11, when used as a point-symmetrical arrangement, the widths of the driving sources (310) are pie shaped. i.e. have different widths as set forth
Re claim 12: as seen from figure 11 one end of the driving sources (310) are larger than the width of a coupler (400)
Re claim 13: See office provided machine translation of CN114513729A, page 53 paragraph [n0247] teaching that the diaphragm can be made from at least a silicon material satisfying the alternatively claimed language as set forth
Re claim 14: the speaker arrangement of CN114513729A is considered as broadly as set forth an array speaker since it makes use of plural distinct drivers in combination with diaphragms
Re claim 16: the teaching of Chunjiao et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Claim 16 additionally sets forth that the transducer is part of a wearable device; which is taught in Chunjiao et al. (See paragraph [n0135] of provided machine translation. Note also that such wearable devices inherently include a frame as set forth in order for the transducer to be wearable by a user.
Re claim 17: note when the wearable device is a headphone, such headphone inherently has an oping in which sound is output to a user.
Re claim 18: see paragraph [n0135] of the provided machine translation teaches the transducer can be an ultrasonic transducer, i.e. a device that can output ultrasonic waves
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunjiao et al. (CN 114513729A) in view of Yokota et al. (US 2022/0264225 A1)
Re claim 15: The teaching of Chunjiao et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Chunjiao et al. does not set forth that in the array speaker a single diaphragm is used, but instead multiple diaphragms. Yokota et al. teaches in a similar environment when providing a speaker array a single diaphragm (6) can be used providing an alternative speaker arrangement for producing acoustic sounds. It would have been obvious before the filing of the invention to one of ordinary skill to replace the multiple diaphragm arrangement in Chunjiao et al. with a single diaphragm arrangement of Yokota et al. to predictably provide an alternative arrangement for the producing acoustic sounds. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed electroacoustic transducer including in combination those features of claim 8/6/1 wherein the coupler: is disposed between adjacent multiple driving sources; and couples the adjacent multiple driving sources together to the diaphragm as set forth in claim 9 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed electroacoustic transducer including in combination those features of claim 1 wherein the coupler includes a spring displaceable in the opposing direction with respect to the driver as set forth in claim 10 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Conclusion
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 6/17/26
Prosecution Insights