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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 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 7 recites the limitation “the dash” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub No 2018/0251079 A1 to Negishi et al. (“Negishi”).
As to claim 1, Negishi discloses a compact audio woofer arrangement for a motor vehicle, the arrangement comprising: an enclosure configured to be installed in the motor vehicle (see figure 1; pg. 5, ¶ 0071), the enclosure containing a woofer or subwoofer configured to emit a sound (low sound range speaker, see pg. 1, ¶ 0002; pg. 8, ¶ 0102), the enclosure including a primary through-hole and a secondary through-hole, the primary through-hole being configured to release a first portion of the sound from the enclosure into a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle at a primary location (front sound wave, see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A and 27A-29A; pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0108, ¶ 0110 - ¶ 0113; pg. 10, ¶ 0117; pg. 13, ¶ 0145); and a hollow vent coupled to the secondary through-hole, the hollow vent being configured to carry a second portion of the sound from the enclosure to a second location remote from the first location such that the second portion of the sound is emitted into the passenger compartment at the second location (via tubular members, see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A and 27A-29A; pgs. 9-10, ¶ 0114 - ¶ 0116, ¶ 0118; pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
As to claim 2, Negishi further discloses wherein the first location is at least 12 inches from the second location (see figure 18; pg. 15, ¶ 0155).
As to claim 4, Negishi further discloses wherein the hollow vent is substantially linear (see figures 9, 13, 18 and 25A).
As to claim 5, Negishi further discloses wherein the enclosure is on a passenger side of the motor vehicle and is disposed forward of a front seat of the motor vehicle (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145 - ¶ 0146).
As to claim 6, Negishi further discloses wherein the second location is on a driver side of the motor vehicle and is disposed forward of a front seat of the motor vehicle (see pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
As to claim 8, Negishi discloses a method for providing sound in a motor vehicle, the method comprising: installing an enclosure in the motor vehicle (see figure 1; pg. 5, ¶ 0071; pg. 20, ¶ 0197), the enclosure containing a woofer or subwoofer (low sound range speaker, see pg. 1, ¶ 0002; pg. 8, ¶ 0102), the enclosure including a first throughhole and a second throughhole; using the woofer or subwoofer to emit a first portion of sound through the first throughhole into a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle at a first location (front sound wave, see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A and 27A-29A; pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0108, ¶ 0110 - ¶ 0113; pg. 10, ¶ 0117; pg. 13, ¶ 0145); coupling a hollow vent to the second throughhole; and carrying a second portion of the sound from the enclosure through the vent to a second location remote from the first location such that the second portion of the sound is emitted into the passenger compartment at the second location (via tubular members, see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A and 27A-29A; pgs. 9-10, ¶ 0114 - ¶ 0116, ¶ 0118; pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
As to claim 11, Negishi further discloses wherein the hollow vent is substantially linear (see figures 9, 13, 18 and 25A).
As to claim 12, Negishi further discloses wherein the enclosure is on a passenger side of the motor vehicle and is disposed forward of a front seat of the motor vehicle (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145 - ¶ 0146).
As to claim 13, Negishi further discloses wherein the second location is on a driver side of the motor vehicle and is disposed forward of a front seat of the motor vehicle (see pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 9-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi.
As to claim 3, Negishi discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
Negishi does not expressly disclose wherein a height, width and length of the enclosure are all less than 12 inches. However Negishi does disclose an example where the enclosure has a volume capacity of 1 liter (see pg. 15, ¶ 0155). Configuring the height, width and length of the enclosure as all being less than 12 inches is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, having an enclosure with a height, width and length of less than 12 inches is merely a straightforward possibility a skilled person would select when designing the enclosure, and particularly for an enclosure configured to have a volume capacity of 1 liter, or 61.02 in³, as already taught by Negishi.
As to claim 7, Negishi does not expressly disclose wherein the enclosure is disposed below a glove box of the motor vehicle, and the second location is disposed below the dash and adjacent to a steering wheel of the motor vehicle. However it does disclose an embodiment where the enclosure can be positioned in front of the passenger and the tubular end can be positioned adjacent to the driver’s seat (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 14, ¶ 0148), as well as embodiments where the enclosure can be disposed below a glove box or at the foot of a passenger side (see figures 27A-27B; pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 17, ¶ 0178), and the tubular end positioned below the dash on the driver’s side near the steering wheel (see figures 18 and 21; pg. 14, ¶ 0148). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, as such embodiments suggest the specific positioning of the enclosure below a glove box and the tubular end below the dash on the driver’s side and therefore adjacent to the steering wheel are considered obvious locations when designing the arrangement such that the enclosure can be positioned in front of the passenger and the tubular end can be positioned adjacent to the driver’s seat (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
As to claim 9, Negishi discloses the method of claim 8.
Negishi does not expressly disclose wherein the first location is at least 30 inches from the second location. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, which discloses various embodiments including varying lengths for the tubular structure (see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A, 27A-29A and 30A-31), and further as it has been held that changes in size are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, configuring the distance between the first and second locations as being at least 30 inches can depend on various factors, including the specific positioning of the enclosure and the tubular structure within the vehicle cabin (see pg. 2, ¶ 0046, ¶ 0048), as well as the specific sound characteristics needed or desired when designing the system and method to provide sound within the vehicle cabin (see pg. 3, ¶ 0057; pg. 4, ¶ 0061; pg. 6, ¶ 0078).
As to claim 10, Negishi does not expressly disclose wherein a height, width and length of the enclosure are all less than 12 inches. However Negishi does disclose an example where the enclosure has a volume capacity of 1 liter (see pg. 15, ¶ 0155). Configuring the height, width and length of the enclosure as all being less than 12 inches is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, having an enclosure with a height, width and length of less than 12 inches is merely a straightforward possibility a skilled person would select when designing the enclosure, and particularly for an enclosure configured to have a volume capacity of 1 liter, or 61.02 in³, as already taught by Negishi.
As to claim 14, Negishi does not expressly disclose wherein the enclosure is disposed below a glove box of the motor vehicle, and the second location is disposed below a steering wheel of the motor vehicle. However it does disclose an embodiment where the enclosure can be positioned in front of the passenger and the tubular end can be positioned adjacent to the driver’s seat (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 14, ¶ 0148), as well as embodiments where the enclosure can be disposed below a glove box or at the foot of a passenger side (see figures 27A-27B; pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 17, ¶ 0178), and the tubular end positioned below the dash on the driver’s side near the steering wheel (see figures 18 and 21; pg. 14, ¶ 0148). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, as such embodiments suggest the specific positioning of the enclosure below a glove box and the tubular end below the steering wheel are considered obvious locations when designing the arrangement such that the enclosure can be positioned in front of the passenger and the tubular end can be positioned near the driver’s seat (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
As to claim 15, Negishi discloses a compact audio woofer arrangement for a motor vehicle, the arrangement comprising: an enclosure configured to be installed in the motor vehicle (see figure 1; pg. 5, ¶ 0071), the enclosure containing a woofer or subwoofer configured to emit a sound (low sound range speaker, see pg. 1, ¶ 0002; pg. 8, ¶ 0102), the enclosure including a first throughhole and a second throughhole, the first throughhole being configured to pass a first portion of the sound from the enclosure into a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle at a first location (front sound wave, see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A and 27A-29A; pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0108, ¶ 0110 - ¶ 0113; pg. 10, ¶ 0117; pg. 13, ¶ 0145); and a hollow vent coupled to the second throughhole, the hollow vent being configured to carry a second portion of the sound from the enclosure to a second location such that the second portion of the sound is emitted into the passenger compartment at the second location (via tubular members, see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A and 27A-29A; pgs. 9-10, ¶ 0114 - ¶ 0116, ¶ 0118; pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
Negishi does not expressly disclose the second location being at least three feet from the first location. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, which discloses various embodiments including varying lengths for the tubular structure (see figures 9-10, 13, 18, 25A, 27A-29A and 30A-31), and further as it has been held that changes in size are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, configuring the distance between the first and second locations as being at least three feet can depend on various factors, including the specific positioning of the enclosure and the tubular structure within the vehicle cabin (see pg. 2, ¶ 0046, ¶ 0048), as well as the specific sound characteristics needed or desired when designing the system to provide sound within the vehicle cabin (see pg. 3, ¶ 0057; pg. 4, ¶ 0061; pg. 6, ¶ 0078).
As to claim 16, Negishi does not expressly disclose wherein a height, width and length of the enclosure are all less than 16 inches. However Negishi does disclose an example where the enclosure has a volume capacity of 1 liter (see pg. 15, ¶ 0155). Configuring the height, width and length of the enclosure as all being less than 16 inches is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, having an enclosure with a height, width and length of less than 16 inches is merely a straightforward possibility a skilled person would select when designing the enclosure, and particularly for an enclosure configured to have a volume capacity of 1 liter, or 61.02 in³, as already taught by Negishi.
As to claim 17, Negishi further discloses wherein the hollow vent is substantially linear (see figures 9, 13, 18 and 25A).
As to claim 18, Negishi further discloses wherein the enclosure is on a passenger side of the motor vehicle and is disposed forward of a front seat of the motor vehicle (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145 - ¶ 0146).
As to claim 19, Negishi further discloses wherein the second location is on a driver side of the motor vehicle and is disposed forward of a front seat of the motor vehicle (see pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
As to claim 20, Negishi does not expressly disclose wherein the enclosure is disposed below a glove box of the motor vehicle, and the second location is disposed below a steering wheel of the motor vehicle. However it does disclose an embodiment where the enclosure can be positioned in front of the passenger and the tubular end can be positioned adjacent to the driver’s seat (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 14, ¶ 0148), as well as embodiments where the enclosure can be disposed below a glove box or at the foot of a passenger side (see figures 27A-27B; pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 17, ¶ 0178), and the tubular end positioned below the dash on the driver’s side near the steering wheel (see figures 18 and 21; pg. 14, ¶ 0148). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Negishi, as such embodiments suggest the specific positioning of the enclosure below a glove box and the tubular end below the steering wheel are considered obvious locations when designing the arrangement such that the enclosure can be positioned in front of the passenger and the tubular end can be positioned near the driver’s seat (see pg. 13, ¶ 0145; pg. 14, ¶ 0148).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693