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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/11/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18029605, Application Number 18031133, Application Number 18031331, Application Number 18277930, Application Number 18029611, Application Number 18277948, Application Number 18031135, Application Number 17912850 and Application Number 17914378 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 and 8 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended with a newly added limitation “…thereby causing the sound as audible in a space within a predetermined distance from the one ear of the user…causing at least reduction of the sound audible beyond the predetermined distance from the one ear of the user…”. The specification as original filed fails to explicitly define a distance that matches the claimed “a predetermined distance from one ear of the user”. Thus, the newly amended claim 1 introduces new matter.
Claim 2 has been amended with a new added limitation “… increasing a value of the predetermined distance from the one ear of the user where the sound is audible.” As discussed before, the specification as originally filed fails to explicitly define a distance, let alone “increasing a value of the predetermined distance”.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 1, as stated in 112(a) rejection above, the specification as original filed fails to explicitly define a distance that matches the claimed “a predetermined distance from one ear of the user”. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 1 is vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corynen (published as US 20210168504 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Corynen discloses a speaker system that emits sound such that the sound is heard only in a vicinity of the speaker system (as discussed in [0007] and [0009], e.g., high SPL only in a vicinity of the speaker system), the speaker system comprising:
a speaker unit pair (represented by
⊕
⊝
in Figs. 13(c)13(d), Figs. 14(e)-14(f), 17(a), Fig. 18, Fig. 26, Fig. 27 and Fig. 29; e.g.) including a positive speaker unit (represented by
⊕
) that emits a first sound based on a first sound signal and a negative speaker unit (represented by
⊝
) that emits a second sound based on a second sound signal that is a sound signal with opposite phase to phase of the first sound (inherent function between
⊕
⊝
), wherein
setting that a direction in which the speaker unit pair faces one ear of a user is a user direction (as illustrated in the identified figures of drawings),
the positive speaker unit (represented by
⊕
) emits the first sound based on the first sound signal in the user direction,
the negative speaker unit (represented by
⊝
) emits the second sound based on the second sound signal in the user direction,
the positive speaker unit further emits a third sound (the back wave of speaker represented by
⊕
, the open back enclosure as shown in Fig. 18, e.g.) with the opposite phase to the phase of the first sound signal in an opposite direction to the user direction (the phase of back wave is inherently having opposite phase and in opposite direction of the front wave generated by the corresponding speaker),
the negative speaker unit further emits a fourth sound (the back wave of speaker represented by
⊝
, the open back enclosure as shown in Fig. 18, e.g.) with the opposite phase to the phase of the second sound signal in an opposite direction to the user direction (the phase of back wave is inherently having opposite phase and in opposite direction of the front wave generated by the corresponding speaker),
the positive speaker unit and the negative speaker unit are positioned side by side (as illustrated in the figures of drawing), thereby causing the sound as audible in a space within a predetermined distance from the one ear of the user according to non-coinciding phases of at least the first sound and the third sound bent around the positive speaker unit, and further causing at least reduction of the sound audible beyond the predetermined distance from the one ear of the user based on cancellation of delivered sounds to the one ear of the user by aggregating the first sound, the second sound, the third sound, and the fourth sound bent around the negative speaker unit ([0009], [0127]).
The other interpretation of the functional “thereby” clause. Corynen discloses the claimed structure, thus Corynen inherently discloses the functional limitations associated with the structure.
Regarding claim 2, Corynen discloses that a member (e.g., housing 101a in Fig. 18 which includes frame with acoustically transparent grill 135 a, [0312]) is attached to the speaker unit pair (14s in Fig. 1) the member (housing 101a) being for lengthening a path of sound emitted from the positive speaker unit and the negative speaker unit of the speaker unit pair in an opposite direction to the user direction (the wave at the rear side of each speaker unit is in an opposite direction to the user direction) and respectively bend around the member toward the user direction (the back wave travels freely after passing holes as shown in Fig. 18(b), including a direction toward the front of the speaker 140), and the lengthened path of the sound increasing a value of the predetermined distance from the one ear of the user where the sound is audible (the limitation is met as the combination of the four waves, including the lengthened path from the back wave, affects the far-field sound cancellation).
Regarding claim 4, Corynen discloses sound absorption material ([0081]). Furthermore, the enclosure (335 in Fig. 33), attached to the speaker unit pair (310s) reads on a member absorbing, at least partially, the rear waves ([0404]).
Regarding claim 5, Corynen discloses a speaker box (Fig. 18) with a plurality of poles (135a in front of the specific
⊕
/
⊝
speaker).
Regarding claim 8, Corynen discloses that the positive speaker unit and the negative speaker unit of the speaker unit pair are disposed such that sound emitted from the positive speaker unit in an opposite direction to the user direction (the sound wave generated by the rear side of each speaker unit is in opposite direction of the user direction) and sound emitted from the negative speaker unit in the opposite direction to the user direction propagate in the user direction due to bending around of the sound (the housing provides exit for the back wave toward the user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corynen in view of Cai et al. (US 20220353614 A1; hereafter Cai).
Regarding claim 3, Corynen fails to show that the positive speaker unit and the negative speaker unit of the speaker unit pair are speaker units to each of which a tweeter is added. Corynen discusses the difficulty of preventing spillage of the low frequency sound using prior art design ([0003], [0028]) due to the corresponding wavelength, but not for the higher frequency (which could be generated by tweeter) ([0012]). Since the sound reproduction of a general audio signal (such as from an ordinary piece of music) includes both low frequency and high frequency, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to include a speaker for generating upper frequency for each speaker unit. Cai teaches the combination of tweeter and a woofer for a user sitting on a chair (Fig. 5). In another embodiment as illustrated in Fig. 3, tweeters (274) are mounted on the headrest ([0031]). To prevent spillage of the high frequency sound, one skilled in the art would utilize the same concept for the low frequency sound by providing high frequency signal in opposite phase to respective tweeters. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Corynen in view of Cai by including tweeter for each low frequency speaker in the speaker unit pair in order to create sound imaging in a wide frequency range within a personal cocoon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 8, applicant argued that Corynen teaches away from a quadruple loudspeaker unit that comprises two dipole loudspeaker. It is noted that the argued feature has not been positively stated in any of the claims.
On p. 8, applicant argued that Fig. 2(a) of Corynen “teaches away from positioning an ear of the user in front of one of the two dipole speakers of the quadruple loudspeaker unit”. Corynen teaches multiple embodiments, including Figs. 14 (c)-(f), Fig. 17, Fig. 18, Fig. 25 and Fig. 27, besides applicant argued Fig. 2(a), 11(b) and 12(a). The newly amended claim 1 is disclosed by Corynen in other embodiments.
On p. 8, applicant argued that Corynen teaches away “for listening to high frequency sound”. It is noted that claim 1 does not recite the frequency range of the sound. Although claim 3 recites a tweeter, the rejection is based on the combination of Corynen and Cai, not Corynen alone.
On p. 9, applicant argued that Corynen does not describe the speaker unit that emits four types of sounds respectively arriving at an ear of the user. The office disagrees. With an open back enclosure as shown in Fig. 18, the back wave is freely to travel to the surrounding area of the enclosure, including toward the ear of the user. Corynen discloses a general headrest in a car. The back of such headrest is a wide open area. For example, the back of headrest of the driver seat is facing the back row. As the sound travels freely, the back wave also travels toward the front direction. With the positive speaker emits two sound and the negative speaker emits another two sound, four sound are emitted toward the ear of the user. Furthermore, Corynen explicitly discloses far-field sound cancellation ([0009], [0127], [0166], [0405]) and personal cocooning effect ([0007]-[0011], [0107]).
On p. 10, applicant argued that the combination of Corynen and Cai fail to compensate the deficiencies of Corynen. The office disagrees for the same reason as stated above with respect to Corynen. Furthermore, Cai clearly teaches the combination of speakers for generating low frequency sound and high frequency sound, placed near the ears of the user sitting in the car. Thus, it would have motivated one skill in the art to modify Corynen to include a tweeter together with speakers for generating low frequency sound in order to provide a sound in a full range to the ear of the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached on 571-272-7848. 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.
/PING LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695