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(s) 1-9, and 14-19 is/are 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, as follow:
Referring to MPEP 2172.01, “depending on the specific facts at issue, a claim which omits subject matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may be rejected …….. under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite (see, e.g., In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976)); or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as failing to claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention (see, e.g., In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968)). Such essential matter may include missing elements, steps or necessary structural cooperative relationships of elements described by the applicant(s) as necessary to practice the invention. ……… If a claim fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant(s) in the specification, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976)……”.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, as best understood by Examiner, essential elements, features and limitations are missing in the claim (claims 1 and 5) to describe and enable limitations recited in claim 1 in last 6 lines, and claim 5 in last 6 lines as follow: “whereby the soundbar interface is selectively horizontally shiftable relative to the wall interface such that the soundbar interface is spaced apart from the wall interface by a selectively variable distance, and whereby the planar front surface of the soundbar interface is selectively positionable at a variable angle relative to the planar rear surface of the wall interface.”
First, newly-presented amended features in lines 7-13 of claim 1, and in lines 9-16 of claim 5 appear to recite limitations directed to arbitrary or nonrestrictive pivoting features of the respective inner arms and intermediate arms, for the arm assembly. The three pivot joints implied, alongside the attached combined four arm sections or soundbar arm, all would provide random and non-reproducible rotational or articulating movements in either clockwise and counterclockwise directions, and multiple varying angular settings. Meanwhile, referring to Fig 5, amount or degree of angular pivoting at each pivot joint appears to occur in a random and nonreproducible manner when there is no apparent mechanism to maintain repeatability or rotational consistency at each of the three pivot joints for all arm segments articulation, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention.
Second, referring to Fig 4 which shows about 45 elements, and Fig 5 showing about 11 elements, and Fig 6 showing about 40 elements and Fig 7 showing about 30 elements, but It appears that at least some of the elements and structures identified in Figs 4-7 which could be providing specific functions or structural changes to enable at least some of the claimed limitation “soundbar interface is selectively horizontally shiftable relative to the wall interface such that the soundbar interface is spaced apart from the wall interface by a selectively variable distance” are not properly recited in claims 1 and 5, respectively, In addition, no descriptions is found in the specification to explain functions and purposes of these multitude of elements identified by reference characters or numeric identifiers in Figs 4-7.
Third, dictionary definition of the word “selectively” according to online Cambridge dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/selectively is as follow: “in a way that involves intentionally choosing some people or things and not others”. (emphasis in bold added). Notice the distinguishing nature of the word “selectively”.
Fourth, drawing reference to instant specification in page 7 line 21 to page 8, line 3, soundbar 98 can be positioned spaced apart from the wall interface 22 at any desired variable distance Y away from the wall, and can be selectively angled relative to the wall by any angle θ relative to wall interface 22 by pulling or pushing on soundbar 98, causing inner pivot arm 26 and intermediate pivot arm 28 to articulate.” (emphasis in bold added). Thus, as best understood by examiner, the takeaway for the definition of the word “selectively” based upon instant disclosure can be as follow: when a desired variable distance Y, is reached (implying that the Y distance is shown), such distance Y is properly selected in combination also with selected angle θ.
Fifth, furthermore, as best understood by examiner, the claimed inventions of claims 1 and 5, and the instant disclosure as originally filed, do not provide any mechanism or tool to identify of actual distance for Y in Fig 5, nor any mechanism or tool to identify actual angle for angle θ, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention. For example, if someone were to select a desired distance Y to be 5.6 inches, it remains unknown as to how the arbitrary and nonrestrictive pivoting a the three pivot joints involving the respective inner arms and intermediate arms articulating, in view of the existing claim limitation which reads “the arm assembly including an inner arm presenting a first end and a second end and an intermediate arm presenting a first end and a second end, the first end of the inner arm pivotally coupled to the wall interface, the second end of the inner arm pivotally coupled to the first end of the intermediate arm, and the second end of the intermediate arm pivotally coupled to the soundbar interface” would ensure that the distance Y is 5.6 inches, and not maybe 4 inches or maybe 7 inches. If the distance Y is not identifiable nor repeatably achieved at 5.6 inches, the particular distance Y then cannot be selectable. Upon careful review also of entire disclosure as originally filed, no mechanism or tool to provide real-time feedback information as to what is distance Y and how much angle θ at any given moment of pivoting and articulation of the respective inner arms and intermediate arms, is found, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention.
Sixth, in order for something to be properly selective, there has to be a plurality of tangible choices wherein an option can be reasonably selected from, Thus, the merely recitation of arbitrary or nonrestrictive or nonreproducible pivoting capability of the respective inner arms and intermediate arms, respectively, would not suffice to meet the tangible choice criteria for selective. Drawing reference from specification, “any desired variable distance Y” means that if 5.6 inches for Y were desired, then the entire arm assembly with the respective inner arms and intermediate arms pivoting and articulating, is/are suppose to properly arrive at 5.6 inches distance Y, and properly identified and kept at 5.6 inches. However, there is no feature or element to identify or maintain any particular selection from so-called “selectively horizontally shiftable”, “selectively variable distance, and “selectively positionable”, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention.
None of the angle θ nor distance Y can be properly determined at any given time, based on the existing set of claim limitations of claims 1 and 5, in view of support from instant disclosure as a whole, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention.
Seventh, refer to annotated figure 5 used in the arguments from applicant in remarks filed on 07/08/2026, as reproduced herein below:
PNG
media_image1.png
818
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please notice that annotated Fig 5 is significantly different from original Fig 5, as reproduced below:
Original Fig 5
PNG
media_image2.png
620
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, although added illustrated features of annotated figure 5 is helpful for better understanding of the invention, nevertheless, the fact that such annotated figure analysis of annotated fig 5 is provided after the fact, would not render such annotated figure to go around or obliviate the issue of new matter, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention.
Drawing reference to Original Fig 5, as reproduced herein above, notice of at least three (3) pivot joints (82, 66 and 94) whose random rotational movements can all affect the final distance for Y. Furthermore, careful review of all figures do not show how distance Y is identified based on the known features of the arm assembly 26 and soundbar mount 20. Meanwhile, when each of the three joints (66, 82, and 94) are all freely independently rotating in one of two directions and resulting in different multiple variable angular settings, it remains unknown how the proper final distance for Y can be properly reproducibly achieved, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention. An analogy for comparison, is that of an articulating wiggle snake toy having multiple pivot joints and multiple body sections, which can be difficult to have reproduceable end shapes during play time after time.
Eighth, according to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OkGSI6T4po which is a Youtube video titled “MOUNT-ESB1 Universal Extendable Soundbar Wall Mount by VIVO” which appear to be very similar soundbar mount as that of claimed inventions of claims 1 and 5. However, because posting date of above youtube video is 02/05/2026, therefore does not qualify as bona fide prior art, but nevertheless, the aforementioned VIVO youtube video is presented here merely as a illustrative example of comparable functionality of a similar extendable soundbar mount that extends and swivels (in varying degree), but which failing to provide the contended functionality of “soundbar interface is selectively horizontally shiftable relative to the wall interface …… spaced apart from the wall interface by a selectively variable distance, and ……planar front surface of the soundbar interface is selectively positionable at a variable angle relative to the planar rear surface of the wall interface.” Note that as shown in the aforementioned youtube video from 0:35 min ~ 0:44 min, all that the soundbar mount is able to do is just extend and swivel (at arbitrary and nonreproducible and nonselective distances & angles). In addition, VIVO video does not make any remarks nor claims about having functionality for selectively horizontally shiftable relative to the wall interface …… spaced apart from the wall interface by a selectively variable distance, and ……planar front surface of the soundbar interface selectively positionable at a variable angle. Furthermore, a person after watching this youtube video would have no idea how far is the distance of the soundbar mount nor what particular swivel angle is at 0:40 min, as reproduced herein below:
PNG
media_image3.png
888
1306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nineth, regarding Claim 9, which recites features and limitations directed to a second soundbar mount. Because the two wall interfaces 20 are respectively mounted to one flat wall surface combining with the fact that the two soundbar interfaces 30 are also respectively mounted to one flat planar surface of the soundbar, therefore it is unclear what specific structural elements and limitations in claim 9 describe and thereby enable the planar front surface of the soundbar interface to be selectively positionable at a variable angle relative to the planar rear surface of the wall interface, in view of having the mounting arrangements of the two wall interfaces 20 and two soundbar interfaces 30 being both planar with respect to parallel surfaces. Meanwhile, the arrangement of wall interface 22 and soundbar interface 30 appear to be parallel to one another, and thus remains unclear as to what happens when the two mounted arm assemblies 25 have other arrangements of wall interface 22 and soundbar interface 30 not parallel and to be at different angle theta (θ). No drawing or figure in instant application is found to show a pair of arm assemblies 25 or a pair of soundbar mounts 20 being structurally arranged to provide or achieve the following: (a) the soundbar interface being selectively horizontally shiftable relative to the wall interface such that the soundbar interface is spaced apart from the wall interface by a selectively variable distance, and (b) the planar front surface of the soundbar interface being selectively positionable at a variable angle relative to the planar rear surface of the wall interface. Thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention.
Tenth, another issue is that it remains unknown of the essential elements of the invention to describe and enable the fixing or locking of the various arms to remain stay still to sustain or maintain relative angle and horizontal distance without further movements, after performing in [0029] of pulling or pushing on soundbar 98, to articulate the inner pivot arm 26 and intermediate pivot arm 28, thus it appears that essential elements are missing to describe and enable the claimed invention.
As a result, based on the totality of above discussions in first through tenth, claims 1, 5 and 9 is/are rejected for failing to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant(s) in the specification, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Correction is required.
By virtue of dependency upon base claims 1 and 5, dependent claims 2-9, and 14-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments submitted on 07//08/2026 have been carefully considered but are deemed not persuasive in view of remarks herein above. For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner offer the following observations for further consideration: by using external tools, such as a ruler, for measuring the real-time distance Y, and using an angle measuring apparatus, such as a protractor, for measuring various angles including θ, along various arm segments and projecting tabs of interface plate of soundbar interface, as well as performing multiple trial-and-error articulations of arm sections and tabs at each of the pivot joints (66, 82, 94) while pulling and pushing on the sound bar as well as adjusting various degree of angular pivoting at joints (66, 82, 94) by a person by hand if required, to then arrive at the claimed inventions of claims 1 and 5. Note that by measuring the distance and the angles, and recording the distance and angular measurements upon proper final configuration of the soundbar mount, the claimed invention is then sufficiently enabled and would achieve reproducibility to arrive at any desired distance Y, thereby achieving soundbar interface selectively horizontally shiftable …. spaced apart… by a selectively variable distance, and planar front surface selectively positionable at a variable angle relative to the planar rear surface of the wall interface. Please note that however, further detailed analysis would be required to assess whether any of such above newly presented features and limitations would be deemed new matter, in view of original disclosure as filed.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of cited prior art disclose or teach “whereby the soundbar interface is selectively horizontally shiftable relative to the wall interface such that the soundbar interface is spaced apart from the wall interface by a selectively variable distance, and whereby the planar front surface of the soundbar interface is selectively positionable at a variable angle relative to the planar rear surface of the wall interface” of claims 1 and 5, respectively. However, claims 1 and 5 remain 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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all statutory requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Newville (US 20210247019A1) discloses a multidirectional display mount. Beil (US 11215313B1) discloses display mount with multiple pivots.
Pei (US10595634B2) discloses adjustable angle mounting apparatus. Huang (US 8245990B2) discloses display mounting assembly.
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 DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4797.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights