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 the application 18,989,817 filed on 12-20-2024. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4 Claim 8 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 8 is recited " The sound system wherein a ratio between a moving mass of the speaker and the moving mass of the actuator is in a range of 0.5 to 5. "
attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved (the moving mass of the actuator is in a range of 0.5 to 5), without stating the essential features to achieve the result claimed.
Claim 8, It is not clear how the correlation of the two signals results in a ratio between a moving mass of the speaker and the moving mass of the actuator is in a range of 0.5 to 5.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: THE CLAIM ARE OBJECTED TO SINCE THE REFERENCE CHARACTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS CREATE CONFUSION AND MAY BE INTERPRETED AS PART OF THE CLAIMS AND THEREFOE THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO AMEND SUCH REFERENCE CHARACTERS ACCORDINGLY. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a (1) as being anticipated by Macours et al. (US2018/0350339)
Consider Claim 1, Macours teaches a Sound system (see fig. 7)), comprising: a speaker (see fig. 8(490)), having a membrane (see fig. 8(490)) and a speaker motor (see fig. 8(490))) coupled thereto, wherein the speaker motor is designed for moving the membrane along a first axis (see figs. 7-8 and paragraph 0055]-[0063]);
an actuator (see fig. 8(470)) having a moving mass (see fig. 8(470)) and an actuator motor (see fig. 8(470)) coupled thereto, wherein the actuator motor (see fig. 8(470)) is designed for moving the moving mass (see fig. 8(470)) along a second axis (see fig. 8(470)) and wherein the second axis (see fig. 8(470)) is displaced from the first axis (see fig. 8); and coupling means (see fig. 8(470)) , for mechanically coupling the actuator (see fig. 8(470)) to the speaker (see fig. 8(490)), wherein the sound system (see fig. 7) further comprises a signal influencing circuit (see fig. 7), which has an audio input (see fig. 7)), a speaker output (see fig. 7)), an actuator output (see fig. 7), a first signal path (see fig. 7) from the audio input (see fig. 7(452) to the speaker output (see fig. 7(490)) and a second signal path (see fig. 7(460)) from the audio input (see fig. 7(452) to the actuator output (see fig. 7(470)), which is designed to feed a first electric signal to the speaker motor via the speaker output (see fig. 7(490)) and a second electric signal to the actuator motor via the actuator output (see fig. 7(470)) based on an audio signal received at the audio input , and which is designed to vary an amplification (see fig. 7(462,478)) of the second electric signal over a frequency range of the sound system and/or to set a phase shift between the first electric signal and the second electric signal, which phase shift is non-equal to 0° and 180° in at least a part of the frequency range of the sound system(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0055]-[0066]).
Consider Claims 2 and 7, Macours teaches the sound system wherein the phase shift (ϕ) fulfills the conditions 10° < ϕ < 170° and 190° < ϕ < 350°(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0055]-[0066]); and the sound system wherein said frequency range reaches from 20 Hz to 20 kHz°(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0055]-[0066]).
Consider Claims 8 and 9, Macours teaches the sound system wherein a ratio between a moving mass of the speaker and the moving mass of the actuator is in a range of 0.5 to 5°(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0055]-[0066]); and the sound system wherein an angle between the first axis and the second axis is in a range of 0° ≤ α ≤ 45°°(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0055]-[0066]).
Consider Claims 10 and 12, Macours teaches the sound system wherein the actuator motor is not designed for moving a membrane along the second axis(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0055]-[0066]); and the sound system wherein the speaker comprises a back volume and wherein the actuator is arranged out of or inside said back volume(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0055]-[0066]) .
Consider Claim 15, Macours teaches an electronic device comprising a sound system built into a housing and/or to a frame of the electronic device, wherein the coupling means for mechanically coupling the actuator to the speaker are formed at least partially by said housing and/or frame(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph [0045]-[0066]) (23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
12. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macours et al. (US2018/0350339) in view of Neel et al. (US 2017/035249).
Consider claim 3, Macours does not explicitly teaches the sound wherein the signal influencing circuit comprises a matching filter in the second signal path.
However, Neel teaches the sound wherein the signal influencing circuit comprises a matching filter in the second signal path(see figs. 1-4B and paragraphs[0035]- [0043])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the invention was made to combine the teaching of Neel in to the teaching of Macours to provide the spectrum information server also executes one or more device host processes configured to communicate with at least one compatible device process executing on a spectrum-aware (SA) device. In an illustrative embodiment, a device process on the SA device may request spectrum information from a device host process on the spectrum information server. The device host process receives the request and may generate a function call that it sends to the server process, which executes an associated function from its library of spectrum-related functions. The execution of the function may cause the server process to retrieve certain spectrum data from a spectrum data source. The server process may return the retrieved spectrum data to the device host process, which in turn sends the requested spectrum information to the device process for presentation to a user.
Consider claim 4, Macours teaches the sound system wherein the signal influencing circuit comprises: a phase shifter or an allpass filter respectively in the first signal path; and a matching filter with a complex transfer function in the second signal path(see figs. 6-9 and paragraph 0055]-[0066]); but Macours does not explicitly teaches a matching filter with a complex transfer function in the second signal path.
However, Neel teaches a matching filter with a complex transfer function in the second signal path(see figs. 1-4B and paragraphs[0035]- [0043])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the invention was made to combine the teaching of Neel in to the teaching of Macours to provide the spectrum information server also executes one or more device host processes configured to communicate with at least one compatible device process executing on a spectrum-aware (SA) device. In an illustrative embodiment, a device process on the SA device may request spectrum information from a device host process on the spectrum information server. The device host process receives the request and may generate a function call that it sends to the server process, which executes an associated function from its library of spectrum-related functions. The execution of the function may cause the server process to retrieve certain spectrum data from a spectrum data source. The server process may return the retrieved spectrum data to the device host process, which in turn sends the requested spectrum information to the device process for presentation to a user.
Consider claims 5 and 6, Macours teaches the sound system wherein the signal influencing circuit additionally comprises a non-linear actuator model of the actuator and an actuator resistance detector for detecting a DC resistance of the actuator, wherein the actuator model has a first actuator model input being connected to an input path leading to the matching filter, a second actuator model input being connected to an output of the actuator resistance detector and an output, which is coupled to the second signal path before the input path to the matching filter(In Neel, see figs. 1-4B and paragraphs[0035]- [0052]); and the sound system wherein the signal influencing circuit additionally comprises a non-linear speaker model of the speaker (2), a speaker resistance detector for detecting a DC resistance of the speaker and a movement difference detector for detecting a difference between a speaker movement parameter and an actuator movement parameter, wherein the speaker model has a first speaker model input being connected to an input path leading to the phase shifter or allpass filter and a second speaker model input being connected to an output of the speaker resistance detector, and wherein the movement difference detector has a first input (I8), which is connected to an output of the speaker model, a second input , which is connected to an output of the actuator model, and an output, which is coupled to the second signal path before the input path to the matching filter (see figs. 1-4B and paragraphs[0035]- [0043]) .
13. Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macours et al. (US2018/0350339) in view of Otto et al. (US 2021/0368276).
Consider claim 11, Macours does not explicitly teach the sound system wherein an average sound pressure level of the speaker measured in an orthogonal distance of 10 cm from a sound emanating surface of the membrane is at least 50 dB_SPL, and an average sound pressure level of the actuator measured at the same directional distance is at most 20 dB_SPL in the same frequency range.
However, Otto teaches the sound system wherein an average sound pressure level of the speaker measured in an orthogonal distance of 10 cm from a sound emanating surface of the membrane is at least 50 dB_SPL, and an average sound pressure level of the actuator measured at the same directional distance is at most 20 dB_SPL in the same frequency range(see figs. 1-7 and paragraphs[0035]- [0043]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the invention was made to combine the teaching of Otto in to the teaching of Macours to provide an electrodynamic actuator for a speaker or an electrodynamic acoustic transducer in general is disclosed, which comprises at least one voice coil, a magnet system and an arm arrangement of a plurality of arms connecting the at least one voice coil and the magnet system or at least a movable part thereof so that a relative movement between these parts is allowed. The arms are made of a metal core, which at least partly is coated with a coating structure having at least one coating metal layer consisting of a different material than the metal core.
14. Claim13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macours et al. (US2018/0350339) in view of Arima et al. (US 2021/0199728).
Consider claim 13, Macours does not explicitly teaches the sound system comprising an input for a supply voltage or a switch off signal and a power saving control , which is designed for reducing an amplitude of the second electric signal compared to a normal operating setting or for turning off generation of the second electric signal below a threshold value of the supply voltage or in case that the switch off signal is received.
However, Arima teaches the sound system comprising an input for a supply voltage or a switch off signal and a power saving control , which is designed for reducing an amplitude of the second electric signal compared to a normal operating setting or for turning off generation of the second electric signal below a threshold value of the supply voltage or in case that the switch off signal is received (see figs. 1-10 and paragraphs[0021]- [0071]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the invention was made to combine the teaching of Arima in to the teaching of Macours to provide a resonance voltage attenuation detection circuit detects attenuation of a resonance voltage of a winding of a transformer. The resonance voltage attenuation detection circuit includes a first voltage comparator circuit and a time-out circuit. The first voltage comparator circuit compares a voltage of the winding with a predetermined first voltage. The time-out circuit performs clocking operation in accordance with an output of the first voltage comparator circuit. The time-out circuit outputs an attenuation detection signal when the time-out circuit has clocked a preset period which is shorter than a time required for a peak voltage of the winding to be attenuated from the first voltage to a predetermined second voltage lower than the first voltage.
15. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macours et al. (US2018/0350339) in view of Fukushima et al. (US 2011/0255718).
Consider claim 14, Macours does not explicitly teach the sound system wherein the coupling means for mechanically coupling the actuator to the speaker are formed by an elastic element with a natural resonance > 1 kHz.
However, Fukushima teaches the sound system wherein the coupling means for mechanically coupling the actuator to the speaker are formed by an elastic element with a natural resonance > 1 kHz(see figs. 1-11 and paragraphs[0017]- [0033]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the invention was made to combine the teaching of Fukushima in to the teaching of Macours to provide a piezoelectric speaker includes: a piezoelectric vibrator including a piezoelectric body formed of a piezoelectric element and a plate-shaped body which has a larger diameter than the piezoelectric body and which is attached to a surface of the piezoelectric body in a concentric form; and a film-shaped body that is provided around the piezoelectric vibrator so as to elastically hold the piezoelectric vibrator. The film-shaped body includes a coarse and dense portion in a circumferential direction thereof, which has a physically coarse portion which can become a mountain portion or a valley portion or both, and which is disposed so as to correspond to a natural frequency of an in-phase mode in which antinodes and nodes are formed in a concentric form. The piezoelectric vibrator and the film-shaped body form a sound producing body.
16. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macours et al. (US2018/0350339) in view of Ibuki et al. (US 2015/0288312).
Consider claim 16, Macours teaches the electronic device, wherein the signal influencing circuit in an operating setting is set in a way that, in at least a part of the frequency range of the sound system (see figs. 1-4B and paragraphs[0035]- [0043]); but Macours does not explicitly teaches an amplitude of a mechanical oscillation at a particular point of the housing and/or frame of the electronic device is below 50% of an amplitude of a mechanical oscillation at said particular point of the housing and/or frame in a reference setting where the actuator is switched off.
However, Ibuki teaches an amplitude of a mechanical oscillation at a particular point of the housing and/or frame of the electronic device is below 50% of an amplitude of a mechanical oscillation at said particular point of the housing and/or frame in a reference setting where the actuator is switched off (see figs. 1-5 and paragraphs[0036]- [0053]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the invention was made to combine the teaching of Ibuki in to the teaching of Macours to provide a linear actuator having a stator which includes an electromagnet and also having a moving element which includes a permanent magnet. The electric razor is also provided with an amplitude control unit and a control/output unit, which detect the amplitude and speed of the moving element on the basis of an induced voltage occurring in the winding of the stator as the moving element reciprocates, compare the detected speed and a formerly detected speed, and, according to the difference representing the result of the comparison, change a method for controlling the moving element.
Consider claim 17, Macours does not explicitly teaches the electronic device wherein the signal influencing circuit in an operating setting is set in a way that, in at least a part of the frequency range of the sound system a maximum amplitude or b) an average amplitude of a mechanical oscillation of the housing and/or frame of the electronic device in case a) is below 50% of a maximum amplitude or in case b) is below 50% of an average amplitude of a mechanical oscillation of the housing and/or frame in a reference setting where the actuator is switched off(see figs. 1-5 and paragraphs[0036]- [0053]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the invention was made to combine the teaching of Ibuki in to the teaching of Macours to provide a linear actuator having a stator which includes an electromagnet and also having a moving element which includes a permanent magnet. The electric razor is also provided with an amplitude control unit and a control/output unit, which detect the amplitude and speed of the moving element on the basis of an induced voltage occurring in the winding of the stator as the moving element reciprocates, compare the detected speed and a formerly detected speed, and, according to the difference representing the result of the comparison, change a method for controlling the moving element.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Scribner et al.(US PAT.5,414,775) are cited to show other related the SOUND SYSTEM AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH IMPROVED VIBRATION COMPENSATION.
18. 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 07-30-2026
Prosecution Insights