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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base and intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1, 8,11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,304,022 (Sanders) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,206 Hill et al.; herein after Hill)
Regarding the claimed speaker comprising a MEMS component, Sanders teaches a sound reproducing apparatus/loudspeaker in which a plurality of blades are used to convert an audio input into acoustic output. Sanders expressly describes the device as a “fan type loudspeaker” and explains that the instantaneous pitch of the blades determines the generated sound pressure. Sanders, col. 1, ll. 45– ll.12
Regarding an inner support, Sanders teaches a central hub 15 from which the sound-producing blades extend. Sanders describes the vibratile member as formed from a sheet that is cut or slotted radially outwardly from a central hub to form the blades. Sanders, col. 2, ll. 35–48; Fig. 2.
Regarding an outer support, Sanders teaches a pair of annular clamping rings 9 supporting the radially outer portions/tails of the blades. Sanders, col. 2, ll. 25–35 and 47–54; Figs. 1–2.
Regarding a plurality of fins, each extending at least partly in a radial direction from a first end coupled to the inner support to a second end coupled to the outer support, Sanders teaches a plurality of discrete, substantially contiguous, wedge-shaped blades 17 formed by slots extending radially outward from central hub 15. The blades terminate in radially extending outer tails 21 that are secured by clamping rings 9. Sanders, col. 2, ll. 35–54; Fig. 2. Sanders further expressly claims “a hub and a plurality of discrete blades extending radially with respect to and spaced circumferentially about said hub.” Sanders, claim 3.
Regarding actuation of at least one end of the fins to generate sound, Sanders teaches that displacement of hub 15 causes blades 17 to twist about their radial axes; movement of the hub in opposite directions causes corresponding opposite blade twisting. Sanders, col. 2, ll. 54–67. Sanders further teaches that an audio-frequency signal causes hub displacement and corresponding blade twisting, which produces air displacement at acoustic frequencies. Sanders, col. 2, ll. 5–20; Fig. 1.
Sanders therefore teaches the claimed radial sound-producing fin arrangement between inner and outer supporting structures, but does not expressly teach that the structure is a MEMS device in which the inner and outer support rotate relative to one another.
Hill teaches precisely a microelectromechanical rotary structure comprising a central hub 100, an outer ring 200 at least partially encircling the hub, and spoke members extending between the hub and ring. Hill, col. 2, ll. 4–23; col. 6, ll. 58–67; Fig. 2(a). Hill expressly states that the spokes change dimension so as to cause the ring to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the hub. Hill, col. 2, ll. 8–23; claim 2.
Hill's mobile-outer-ring embodiment further teaches ring 200 spaced from and at least partially encircling hub 100, with each hub spoke extending between the hub and ring; expansion and contraction of the spokes apply rotational force to the ring. Hill, col. 6, ll. 58–67–col. 7, ll. 19; Figs. 2(a)–2(b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Sanders' radial sound-producing blade arrangement using Hill's known MEMS hub/ring rotary architecture in order to provide a miniaturized, microfabricated rotary structure capable of controlled relative movement between concentric inner and outer supporting members, while retaining Sanders' known acoustic function of actuating radial blades to displace air and generate sound.
With respect to claim 9, claim 9 depends from claim 1. Sanders and Hill teach the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding the additional limitation wherein the inner support is fixed and the outer support is configured to rotate, Hill expressly teaches its mobile outer ring embodiment. Ring 200 surrounds hub 100 and is connected thereto by spokes, with dimensional change of the spokes causing ring 200 to rotate relative to hub 100 (Hill, col. 2, ll. 8–17; Fig. 2(a); claim 2).
With respect to claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the MEMS-component portion of claim 1 without requiring the complete speaker environment.
Sanders teaches the inner hub, outer annular supporting rings, radial blades extending therebetween, and actuation/twisting of the radial blades as mapped above at col. 2, ll. 25–67 and Figs. 1–2, while Hill teaches a MEMS hub/ring structure having members extending between the hub and ring and controlled relative rotary motion, col. 2, ll. 4–23; col. 6, l. 58–col. 7, l. 17; Fig. 2(a); claim 2. Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons and motivation stated for claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, claim 18 recites an electronic device including a MEMS transducer having substantially the radial-support/fin arrangement of claims 1 and 11.
Sanders expressly teaches an electrically driven loudspeaker/sound-translating device and teaches audio-responsive actuation of the radial blades. Sanders, col. 1, ll. 45–12; col. 2, ll. 5–25 and 35–66. Hill supplies the MEMS implementation and relative hub/ring rotation for the reasons above.
With respect to claims 8 and 17, regarding the additional limitation wherein the outer support structure is fixed and the inner support structure is configured to rotate, Hill teaches a “Mobile Hub” embodiment comprising hub 100 and a plurality of hub spoke members 110 extending radially outwardly from the hub. The spoke members are configured to impose rotational forces upon hub 100 in response to dimensional changes of the spoke members. Upon heating and expansion of the spoke members, a rotational force is applied to hub 100 in a first direction, and upon cooling and contraction, a rotational force is applied to hub 100 in the opposite direction (Hill, Fig. 1(a) and corresponding “Mobile Hub” description; claim 1).
Hill further teaches, in its ring embodiment, an outer ring 200 at least partially encircling hub 100, with radial hub spoke members extending between hub 100 and ring 200 (Hill, Fig. 2(a); claim 2).
Hill therefore expressly establishes that its MEMS rotary architecture permits selection of either the central hub or surrounding ring as the rotary member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Hill's disclosed mobile-hub configuration in the Sanders/Hill radial acoustic structure, while maintaining the surrounding outer support stationary, because Hill expressly teaches rotation of the central hub as an alternative MEMS rotary configuration and separately teaches an outer ring surrounding the hub with radial members extending therebetween. Selecting the central hub rather than the surrounding ring as the driven rotary member constitutes use of Hill's expressly disclosed alternative rotary configuration for its known purpose, namely producing controlled rotary movement in a MEMS structure.
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,304,022 (Sanders) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,206 Hill et al.; herein after Hill) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0091340 (Melnikov et al.; hereinafter Melnikov).
With respect to claim 2, Sanders/Hill teach the subject matter of claim 1, except the substrate aspects.
Regarding a first substrate disposed on a first side and a second substrate disposed on a second side of the MEMS component, Melnikov teaches a layered structure 12 comprising layers disposed in respective MEMS planes and defining cavity 16, with the interaction structure arranged within the layered structure (Melnikov ¶¶[0058]–[0061]; Fig. 1).
Melnikov further teaches embodiments employing lid and bottom wafers/layers on opposite sides of the MEMS interaction structure. See particularly ¶¶[0136]–[0143] and Figs. 7a–7g.
Regarding the second substrate sealingly enclosing the second side, Melnikov teaches that the layered structure surrounds/delimits the cavity and that the fluid exchange with the environment occurs through specifically provided openings 18, 18a and/or 18b (¶¶[0060]–[0061], [0136]–[0143]). Thus, the portions of the wafer bounding the cavity other than the deliberately formed openings provide the cavity enclosure.
To the extent Melnikov does not expressly characterize the opposing wafer as “sealingly” enclosing the second side, providing one bounding wafer without an acoustic opening while providing the required openings through the opposite wafer would have been an obvious selection from Melnikov's disclosed arrangements of openings in one or both bounding layers, because Melnikov expressly teaches varying the number and disposition of the openings to control fluid communication with the cavity (¶¶[0136]–[0143]).
Regarding the first substrate comprising a plurality of openings, Melnikov expressly teaches groups of openings 18a and 18b in the layered structure (¶¶[0136]–[0143]; Figs. 7d–7g).
In particular, Melnikov ¶[0138] describes opening groups 18a and 18b associated with the cavity structure; ¶¶[0139]–[0142] further describe the positioning of these openings in the respective lid/bottom wafer regions and their communication with the corresponding cavity portions.
Regarding the openings being configured to allow sound generated by the MEMS component to exit, Melnikov teaches that the openings fluidically connect cavity portions with the environment and that movement of the interaction structure conveys fluid through the openings. Melnikov expressly identifies implementation of the device as a loudspeaker, in which the fluid movement generates acoustic pressure (¶¶[0007]–[0013], [0136]–[0143]).
The figures show the claimed type of layered/opening structure, including openings 18a/18b associated with the MEMS cavity.
It would have been obvious to have incorporated Melnikov's known layered MEMS cavity and acoustic-opening structure into the Sanders/Hill MEMS acoustic transducer in order to protect and package the MEMS structure while providing controlled fluid/acoustic communication between the sound-producing structure and the external environment. Melnikov expressly teaches such layered/opening arrangements for interaction with fluid and loudspeaker operation.
Claim 3
The limitations of claims 1 and 2 are taught by Sanders/Hill above, except for the plurality of spaces aspects.
However, regarding a plurality of spaces, each disposed between a corresponding pair of fins, Melnikov teaches a plurality of movable fin structures 36 and rigid structures 38 defining corresponding sub-cavities within cavity 16 (Melnikov ¶¶[0136]–[0143]; Figs. 7a–7g).
Paragraph [0136] introduces the Fig. 7 interaction structure and its cavity/opening arrangement. Paragraphs [0137]–[0140] describe the fin/sub-cavity configuration and the addition of openings 18a/18b to the respective cavity portions.
Regarding the first substrate comprising at least one opening adjacent each corresponding space, Melnikov teaches opening groups 18a and 18b positioned adjacent and fluidically coupled to the corresponding sub-cavity portions (¶¶[0138]–[0142]; Figs. 7d–7g).
Melnikov specifically explains that different sub-cavity portions may communicate through the respective opening groups 18a/18b and that the openings may be arranged in the lid/bottom wafer regions corresponding to the sub-cavities (¶¶[0139]–[0142]).
It would have been obvious to repeat the disclosed opening arrangement for the respective fin-defined acoustic spaces because Melnikov teaches the openings for the purpose of conveying the fluid displaced by the corresponding movable structures to or from the external environment.
With respect to claim 5 and regarding the limitations of claims 1 and 2 are mapped above.
Regarding the radial direction being substantially parallel to the first and second substrates, Sanders teaches blades 17 extending radially outwardly from central hub 15 (Sanders, col. 2, ll. 35–54; Fig. 2).
Melnikov teaches that a MEMS plane is substantially parallel to the principal/main side of the wafer and defines movement/directions within that plane as in-plane, while the perpendicular direction corresponds to the thickness direction (Melnikov ¶¶[0058]–[0061]).
Melnikov's Figs. 1–2 illustrate the MEMS interaction structures extending within the plane of the layered wafer structure.
Thus, incorporating Hill's MEMS structure according to Melnikov's in-plane MEMS configuration into the Sanders' radial arrangement places the radial direction substantially parallel to the first and second substrate surfaces.
It would have been obvious to use the in-plane arrangement because Melnikov teaches that configuration for MEMS fluid-interaction structures and because it predictably permits the movable structures to occupy and interact with the cavity defined between the wafer layers.
Claim 19 includes the limitations of claim 18, taught by Sanders/Hill as mapped above.
Regarding first and second substrates disposed on respective sides of the MEMS transducer, Melnikov teaches layered structure 12 defining cavity 16 and the opposing wafer/layer configuration (¶¶[0058]–[0061], [0136]–[0143]; Figs. 1, 7d–7g).
Regarding the second substrate enclosing the second side, Melnikov teaches the layered structure delimiting the cavity and providing intentionally positioned openings for communication with the exterior (¶¶[0060]–[0061], [0136]–[0143]). For the reasons explained with respect to claim 2, providing the openings on the first side while leaving the opposing cavity-bounding wafer closed would have been an obvious implementation of Melnikov's disclosed opening arrangements.
Regarding a plurality of openings in the first substrate, Melnikov teaches opening groups 18a and 18b through respective wafer regions (¶¶[0138]–[0142]; Figs. 7d–7g).
Regarding those openings being configured to allow sound generated by the MEMS transducer to exit, Melnikov teaches fluid communication between the cavity portions and the exterior through openings 18a/18b and teaches use of the structure for generation of acoustic pressure as a loudspeaker (¶¶[0007]–[0013], [0136]–[0143]).
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,304,022 (Sanders) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,206 Hill et al.; herein after Hill) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,936,141 (Rapata).
With respect to claims 6 and 15
The inherited limitations are taught by Sanders/Hill as mapped above.
Regarding substantially cylindrical inner and outer supports, Rapata teaches outer ring 42 and inner ring 48(Rapata, col. 2, ll. 37–59; Figs. 2–4).
Regarding the outer support being coaxially disposed around the inner support, Rapata teaches inner ring 48 concentrically/coaxially positioned within outer ring 42 (col. 2, ll. 37–59).
Regarding radial members between the supports, Rapata teaches rings 42 and 48 integrally connected by spokes 52, including generally radial portions 54 and 56 (col. 2, ll. 48–65).
It would have been obvious to employ Rapata's concentric ring geometry in Hill's inner-hub/outer-ring structure because it provides a known symmetrical support arrangement for circumferentially distributed radial members and relative torsional movement.
With respect to claims 7 and 16, the inherited limitations are mapped above.
Regarding a unitary contiguous structure comprising the inner support, outer support and fins, Rapata teaches rings 42 and 48 integrally connected by spokes 52, with the entire structure being integrally molded (Rapata, col. 2, ll. 35–65).
Sanders independently teaches forming hub 15 and radial blades 17 as one piece of flexible resilient sheet material (Sanders, col. 2, ll. 35–47; claim 5).
It would have been obvious to integrally form the supports and radial members because both Rapata and Sanders teach integral construction as a known way of forming such interconnected radial structures, predictably reducing separate components and attachment interfaces.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,304,022 (Sanders) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,206 Hill et al.; herein after Hill) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,469,415 (Jerman).
The limitations of claim 1 are mapped above.
Regarding at least one electrode, Jerman teaches stationary and movable comb-drive electrodes electrically connected to a controller/voltage generator (Jerman, col. 5, ll. 36–58).
Regarding the electrode being configured to cause rotation of at least one support, Jerman teaches applying a voltage potential to the comb-drive structure, producing electrostatic attraction between stationary and movable comb fingers and thereby causing pivoting/rotation of the movable structure (col. 6, ll. 41–65).
Jerman further teaches controlled rotary movement in opposite directions (col. 7, ll. 1–12).
It would have been obvious to employ Jerman's electrostatic rotary drive to cause Hill's relative support rotation because Jerman teaches a known voltage-controlled MEMS mechanism for producing precisely such rotary movement.
With respect to claim 21
Regarding applying a voltage to at least one electrode of a drive element of a MEMS speaker, Jerman teaches a voltage generator/controller electrically connected to MEMS comb-drive electrodes (Jerman, col. 5, ll. 36–58) and applying a voltage potential to the electrodes to produce electrostatic actuation (col. 6, ll. 41–65).
Regarding responsive to applying the voltage, rotating at least one of an inner support or an outer support, Jerman teaches voltage-induced rotation of a MEMS movable structure (col. 6, ll. 41–65; col. 7, ll. 1–12), while Hill teaches the claimed inner/outer support architecture in which ring 200 rotates relative to hub 100 (Hill, col. 2, ll. 1–17; col. 6, l. 58–col. 7, l. 7; Fig. 2(a); claim 2).
Regarding actuating a plurality of fins extending radially between the inner and outer supports, Sanders teaches blades 17 extending radially from hub 15 to their outer supported tails 21 (Sanders, col. 2, ll. 35–54) and teaches that displacement of the support/hub causes blades 17 to twist about their radial axes (col. 2, ll. 54–67).
Regarding generating sound, Sanders teaches that the audio-responsive change in blade pitch produces corresponding sound pressure (col. 1, ll. 45–75). Sanders additionally teaches electrical/electrostatic actuation of the blade structure (col. 3, ll. 35–55).
It would have been obvious to have incorporated Jerman's voltage-responsive MEMS rotary actuator to provide Hill's relative hub/ring rotation in Sanders' radial acoustic structure because Jerman provides a known electrical mechanism for controlled MEMS rotation, Hill provides the corresponding concentric support architecture, and Sanders teaches converting actuation of the radial members into acoustic output.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,304,022 (Sanders) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,206 Hill et al.; herein after Hill) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3.065,941 (Loftis)
The limitations of claim 11 are mapped above.
Regarding each fin comprising a first jog and a second jog, Loftis teaches radial spoke portions 14 connecting concentric inner ring 10 and outer ring 12, each spoke being generally Z-shaped such that the spoke changes direction between its inner and outer ends (Loftis, col. 1, ll. 60–72; Fig. 1).
The successive directional offsets/bends of the Z-shaped radial member correspond to the claimed first and second jogs.
Loftis further teaches that the tortuous/Z-shaped path provides torsional flexibility permitting restrained relative rotary movement between the rings (col. 3, ll. 5–12).
It would have been obvious to employ Loftis' jogged radial-member geometry in the Sanders/Hill structure to provide increased torsional compliance of the radial members during relative rotation of the supports, a function expressly taught by Loftis.
Claim 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,304,022 (Sanders) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,206 Hill et al.; herein after Hill) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0091340 (Melnikov et al.; hereinafter Melnikov) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,428.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sanders in view of Hill and Melnikov as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Dehe et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,516,428.
The electronic device, MEMS transducer, inner support, outer support, radial fins, support movement and sound generation are taught by Sanders/Hill as mapped for claim 18.
The first and second substrates, cavity enclosure and acoustic openings are taught/suggested by Melnikov as mapped for claim 19 (Melnikov ¶¶[0058]–[0061], [0136]–[0143]; Figs. 1, 7d–7g).
Regarding the MEMS transducer comprising a first MEMS transducer unit in a speaker having one or more additional MEMS transducer units, Dehe teaches a plurality of microspeakers 202 disposed on substrate 102 to form an array, with the respective membranes/electrodes capable of being independently driven (Dehe, col. 10, ll. 17 –37; Fig. 12).
Thus, one microspeaker 202 corresponds to the first MEMS transducer unit and the additional microspeakers 202 correspond to the claimed one or more additional MEMS transducer units.
It would have been obvious to arrange a plurality of the Sanders/Hill/Melnikov MEMS transducer units according to Dehe's known microspeaker array configuration in order to provide multiple sound-producing units on a common substrate and thereby predictably provide distributed and/or increased acoustic output.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 -272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be directed to the examiner's computer at 571 273 - 7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
28Sep2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
