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 lines 10-14 and claim 5 in lines 12-17 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.”
Upon diligent search of entire disclosure of instant application, no structural limitations nor drawings describe and enable the following: 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.
Meanwhile, as best understood by Examiner, Figs 5-7 show an arm assembly links the wall interface and soundbar interface through pivot joints, and Inner arm and intermediate arm has pivots, and in [0029] describes inner pivot arm 26 and intermediate pivot arm 28 articulate by pulling or pushing on soundbar 98, which belongs as an outside action of using the apparatus.
However, referring to limitations in claim 1 in lines 10-14, and claim 5 in lines 12-17 which recite: “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”, especially the term “selectively” is vague and ambiguous, and can include many other types of different structures to achieve the same end result of selectively horizontal shifting.
Upon diligent search of entire disclosure of instant application, no structural limitations nor drawings describe and enable the following: 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” as recited in claims 1 and 5, respectively.
According to instant disclosure including all drawings and figures, it is unclear how 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.
For example, Figs 1-4 of instant application clearly show the planar front surface of the soundbar interface being positionable at one angle relative to the planar rear surface of the wall interface.
Meanwhile, description in specification in page 7 line 21 to page 8 line 3, discuss only singular unit of arm assembly 25 as shown in Fig 5, which can be angled by angle theta (θ) relative to wall interface 22.
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 claims 1 and 5 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 discussed above. 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.
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.
As a result, claims 1 and 5 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.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 5 is/are also rejected for breath and ambiguity, because the existing limitations of lines 10-14 in claim 1 and in lines 12-17 in claim 5 appear to define solely what the soundbar mount does rather than what the soundbar mount is, its boundaries become unclear, and thus covers every conceivable way of achieving the function without establishing limits, thus further rejected 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, see remarks regarding Plummer (US 12219308), filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 14-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of above discussions herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith (US 9109742B2) disclose a mount for display. Jones (US 20120255919A1) discloses a mounting assembly with soundbar. Newville (US 11287080B2) disclose a display mount. Gross (US 9433293B2) discloses an articulating mount for display. Sculler (US 9344667B2) discloses a video mounting system.
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