DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 24th June, 2026. Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-11 were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and Claim(s) 12-13 were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-13 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (JP) 2021-181031 filed on 5th November, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2025, and 05/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 7-12) with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA ) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The arguments and rationale are based on the claims as currently amended and thus are not commensurate with claims as examined and rejected in the previous office action. See rejections and motivations below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLUGSTAD (US 2002/0047009 A1) in view of JANES (US 5333527 A).
Referring to Claim 1, FLUGSTAD teaches a sound quality or quality control apparatus for controlling a sound quality or quality of an acoustic device or material comprising:
at least one electrode ([0010]: two large parallel electrodes placed on opposite sides of a wood sample);
a controller ([0128]; computer 138) configured to control at least one of a voltage value, a current value, a frequency, or a phase of voltage or current applied to the electrode ([0126]; [0128]-[0130]; [0136]), wherein the electrode is disposed on the acoustic device or material itself, or is disposed on a member facing the acoustic device or material ([0010]), as an object is disposed to face the electrode ([0010]), the object having liquid inside or on a surface and containing at least one of wood, leather, metal, an inorganic material, an organic material, an animal- or plant-derived material, or a composite material ([0010]) and according to at least one aspect of the acoustic device or material ([0128]-[0130]), at least one of a voltage value, a current value, a frequency, or a phase of the voltage or the current ([0082]-[0084]), having a DC component and/or an AC component to be applied to the electrode ([0010]), is adjusted ([0082]-[0084]), and at least one of an electric field, a magnetic field, an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, sound waves or ultrasonic waves generated by the electrode, is controlled ([0099]) to control a state of the liquid present inside or around the acoustic device or material disposed to face the electrode ([0010]), so that a sound quality or quality of the acoustic device or material is controlled ([0010]).
FLUGSTAD doesn’t explicitly teach the acoustic device or material, as an object.
JANES teaches a sound quality or quality control apparatus for controlling a sound quality or quality of an acoustic device or material (Col. 1, Ln. 10-36: teaches an acoustic guitar having a wooden soundboard and discusses the desirable sound quality of wood acoustic guitars. And further that the moisture gain/loss may cause undesirable changes in instrument intonation);
the acoustic device or material, as an object (Col. 1, Ln. 10-36: teaches an acoustic guitar having a wooden soundboard; the soundboard itself is an acoustic material responsible for sound production), the object having liquid inside or on a surface (Col. 1, Ln. 10-36: Wood soundboards gain and lose moisture) and containing at least one of wood, leather, metal, an inorganic material, an organic material, an animal- or plant-derived material, or a composite material (Col. 1, Ln. 10-36: an acoustic soundboard which consists of spruce wood sample).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sound quality or quality control apparatus disclosed in FLUGSTAD with wooden acoustic soundboard taught in JANES with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have controlled the moisture condition of the soundboard as taught by JANES (Col. 1, Ln. 10-36).
Referring to Claim 6, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when the object is an animal- or plant-derived material ([0010]), the controller applies at least one of voltage or current having at least one component of a DC component or an AC component to the electrode ([0043]; [0082]-[0085]; [0128]-[0130]) to control at least one sound quality or quality into a predetermined state ([0010]), so as to control the sound quality or quality to be in a predetermined state ([0010]; [0082]-[0085]).
JANES teaches the sound quality or quality including a characteristic of frequency of the object, a distortion rate, an SN ratio, a noise, a dynamic range, sustain, sound vibration, attack sound, slipperiness of a string, a tone, a balance of sounds, a balance of masses, a speed, a flow, maneuver, a resistance with water, a mechanical resistance, a friction resistance, a fuel efficiency, durability, a range, accuracy, directional stability, hitting efficiency, impact transmission characteristics, a force and rotation given to a ball, a directivity of ball hitting, a hitting speed, a flying distance, hitting sensation, a throw distance, a mechanical resistance, contact with a snow surface, rigidity, strength, a vibration characteristic, softness, hardness, a cushioning property, feel against one’s skin, aesthetic performance, a sugar content, an acidity, a hardness, an AGEs score, a sugar concentration, a cell concentration, smell, mouthfeel, freshness, a maturation degree, sliminess prevention, turbidity prevention, mold prevention, rust prevention, algae growth prevention, or cracking prevention (Col. 1, Ln. 10-36).
Claim 10 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a method for controlling a sound quality or quality of an acoustic device or material of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is essentially the same as Claim 10 and refers to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer (38) to execute the method according to claim 10. Therefore Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 10 above.
Referring to Claim 12, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of a voltage value, a current value, a frequency, or a phase of the voltage or the current, having a DC component and/or an AC component to be applied to the electrode, is adjusted ([0091]-[0092]; [0116]-[0118]; [0128]-[0130]) according to at least one of:
a type of the acoustic device or material ([0054]-[0055]; [0113]-[0114]);
a state of the acoustic device or material ([0095]; [0116]-[0118]; [0128]-[0130]);
a temperature around the acoustic device or material ([0091]-[0092]; [0113]-[0114]);
or a humidity around the acoustic device or material ([0163]).
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 12 above
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLUGSTAD in view of JANES as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of TANAKA (US 2019/0038077 A1).
Referring to Claim 2, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of controls is performed on the liquid present inside or on the surface of the acoustic device or material disposed to face the electrode ([0010]; [0043]), the controls including:
(4) controlling arrangement of molecules of the liquid or particles of the liquid ([0043]).
FLUGSTAD doesn’t explicitly teach (1) controlling in such a manner that the liquid turns into a state of reducing an interfacial tension of the liquid; (2) controlling in such a manner that the liquid turns into a bonding state with a pearl-chain structure; (3) controlling in such a manner that particles of the liquid are micronized;
TANAKA teaches (1) controlling in such a manner that the liquid turns into a state of reducing an interfacial tension of the liquid ([0058]-[0059]; [0066]; [0081]-[0082]);
(2) controlling in such a manner that the liquid turns into a bonding state with a pearl-chain structure ([0083]-[0085]; [0092]; [0095]-[0097]);
(3) controlling in such a manner that particles of the liquid are micronized ([0083]-[0085]; [0089]);
(4) controlling arrangement of molecules of the liquid or particles of the liquid (([0083]-[0085]; [0092]; [0095]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sound quality or quality control apparatus disclosed in FLUGSTAD with electric-field liquid -control taught in TANAKA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have further controlled the physical state and behavior of the water subject to the applied electric field as taught by TANAKA ([0081]-[0085]; [0092]; [0094]-[0097]).
Referring to Claim 3, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the interfacial tension of the liquid in controlling in such a manner that the liquid turns into a state of reducing an interfacial tension of the liquid includes at least one of an interfacial tension between the liquid and another liquid, an interfacial tension between the liquid and a gas, or an interfacial tension between the liquid and a solid.
TANAKA teaches the interfacial tension of the liquid in controlling in such a manner that the liquid turns into a state of reducing an interfacial tension of the liquid includes at least one of an interfacial tension between the liquid and another liquid, an interfacial tension between the liquid and a gas, or an interfacial tension between the liquid and a solid ([0058]-[0066]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLUGSTAD in view of JANES as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of TORGOVNIKOV (US 2019/0038077 A1).
Referring to Claim 4, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, an effect of improving a property of the acoustic device or material is sustained for a predetermined period after the electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, sound waves, or ultrasonic waves generated by the electrode toward the acoustic device or material cease to be applied.
TORGOVNIKOV teaches an effect of improving a property of the acoustic device or material is sustained ([0045]-[0056]) for a predetermined period after the electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, sound waves, or ultrasonic waves generated by the electrode toward the acoustic device or material cease to be applied ([0045]-[0050]; [0052]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sound quality or quality control apparatus disclosed in FLUGSTAD with the microwave wood treatment taught in TORGOVNIKOV with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have obtained a wood-property modification that persists after electromagnetic treatment has ceased as taught by TORGOVNIKOV ([0045]-[0056]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLUGSTAD in view of JANES as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of RUBINSKY (US 2019/0038077 A1).
Referring to Claim 5, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the electrode is disposed in a storage container for the acoustic device or material.
RUBINSKY teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the electrode is disposed in a storage container ([0062]-[0064]; [0071]-[0077]; Clm. 26)
JANES teaches for the acoustic device or material (Col. 1, Ln. 15-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sound quality or quality control apparatus disclosed in FLUGSTAD with the storage container taught in RUBINSKY with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have applied the electric-field treatment to the stored material while the material remains within the stored environment so that moisture control could be maintained as taught by RUBINSKY ([0062]-[0064]; [0075]-[0077]).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLUGSTAD in view of JANES as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of RAJGURU (US 2017/0266443 A1).
Referring to Claim 7, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of voltage or current is controlled to increase or decrease continuously or stepwise, or to be at a predetermined value.
RAJGURU teaches at least one of voltage or current is controlled to increase or decrease continuously or stepwise, or to be at a predetermined value ([0384]-[0385]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sound quality or quality control apparatus disclosed in FLUGSTAD with the electrical controller taught in RAJGURU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have verified the applied electrical magnitude continuously, stepwise or according to the predetermined values as taught by RUBINSKY ([0384]-[0385]).
Referring to Claim 8, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein but doesn’t explicitly teach the controller is connected to at least any of a smartphone, a mobile phone, a tablet terminal, a mobile terminal, or a PC.
RAJGURU teaches the controller is connected to at least any of a smartphone, a mobile phone, a tablet terminal, a mobile terminal, or a PC ([0375]-[0376]).
Referring to Claim 9, FLUGSTAD, as modified, teaches the sound quality or quality control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: but doesn’t explicitly teach the controller is connected to a management server to be able to communicate therewith; the management server performs at least one of updating or performing maintenance of a program of the controller, surveying or monitoring a use status of the controller, collecting or analyzing position information or environmental information on the controller, collecting or analyzing improvement request information from the controller, performing maintenance of the controller, collecting control information from the controller and/or information from a database, generating and providing learning model information for the controller, providing control information based on the learning model information, or providing control parameters of the controller.
RAJGURU teaches the controller is connected to a management server to be able to communicate therewith ([0375]);
the management server performs at least one of updating or performing maintenance of a program of the controller, surveying or monitoring a use status of the controller, collecting or analyzing position information or environmental information on the controller, collecting or analyzing improvement request information from the controller, performing maintenance of the controller, collecting control information from the controller and/or information from a database, generating and providing learning model information for the controller, providing control information based on the learning model information, or providing control parameters of the controller ([0386]).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights