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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 and 31-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claims 1, 9, 14, 31, and 33 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, 14, 31, and 33 recite “torsion beams”, “drive beams”, “movable portion” are essential for the definition of the invention and not clearly defined in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. There is no dependent claims which may be used to clearly define the torsion beams, drive beams, movable portion. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-23, 32, and 34-39 inherit the same defect(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 24, 27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerini et al. (EP 3687192 A1).
As to claim 24, Cerini teaches an actuation structure 10 of a MEMS electroacoustic transducer 11 (actuation structure 10 further comprises a second stopper arrangement 32, which is also made integrally to the die 12 and the monolithic body 13, configured to limit movement of the cantilever elements 18 along a second direction of the vertical axis z and, as will be highlighted hereinafter, movement in the second direction of an acoustic membrane) comprising:
a frame (frame 14);
a central portion located inside an inner edge of the frame (Figs. 3, 7C-D, element 15);
a connection portion connecting the inner edge of the frame and an outer edge of the central portion (Figs. 7C-D – inner edge of 15, 17 to dotted line to dark circle).
Cerini does not explicitly discuss the frame includes an uneven structure. However, Cerini teaches each of an upper surface and a lower surface of the frame Figs. 4-5 with element 16 elevated, element 18 flat at bottom and other elements on to shown uneven.
Therefore frame 14 includes uneven structure as shown in Figs. 4-5 for the purpose of corresponding manufacturing process according to a possible alternative embodiment or particular design.
As to claim 27, Cerini teaches the membrane according claim 24, wherein the connection portion protrudes above the upper surface of the central portion (Figs. 3, 7C-D) and wherein a cross-sectional view taken in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the central portion, the upper surface and the lower surface of the connection portion curve in the same direction (Figs. 3, 7C-D).
As to claim 29, Cerini teaches the membrane according claim 24, wherein the frame, the connection portion, and the central portion have an integral structure (Figs. 3-5, 7 A-D).
5. Claim 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerini et al. (EP 3687192 A1) in view of Suyama et al. (JP 2002143769 A).
As to claim 28, Cerini does not explicitly discuss the membrane according claim 24, wherein the connection portion includes a plurality of slits arranged at predetermined intervals.
Suyama teaches the electromagnetic type of electro-acoustic transducer usually uses a metal plate close to the magnetic pole with priority given to efficiency and therefore has lower sound quality than a conductive electro-acoustic transducer that moves a coil. The structure described in claim 12 aims at improving sound quality. Slits 101 and 102 are formed at equal intervals on the outer periphery of diaphragms 99 and 100 by a circular thin plate of non-magnetic metal, and circular film 103 having an outer diameter similar to the outer diameter of diaphragms 99 and 100 , 104 are bonded at least at the center of the diaphragm (Fig. 10 and [0045]); and The slits are formed at equal intervals on the outer periphery of the diaphragm ([0022]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Suyama into the teachings of Cerini for the purpose of forming equal intervals on the outer periphery of the diaphragm.
As to claim 30, Suyama teaches the membrane according claim 24, further comprising a vibrating plate fixed to the central portion (abstract, Solution - arranging an armature 18 made of a magnetic substance and fixed to the central part of the vibration plate 17 parallel at the vicinity of the magnetic gap).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-23 and 31-39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 1, 9, 14, 31, and 33, prior arts of record fail to teach , or render obvious, alone or in combination an electro-acoustic transducer comprising the claimed components, relationships, and functionalities as specifically recited in the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 25-26 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
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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 on 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
