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 § 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.
1.Claims 1-2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascoe (US20150298656).
With respect to claim 1 Pascoe discloses a glass diaphragm equipped vehicle boysy structure (windshield) comprising:
A glass diaphragm including a window glass that closes an opening portion of a vehicle body (namely the windshield), a resin layer (30) attached to a peripheral edge of a surface of the window glass on a vehicle interior side, and an exciter (16) attached to the surface of the window glass on the vehicle interior side,
Wherein in a case wherein the spring constant of the resin layer is K1m a spring constant of the exciter fi K2m and a mass of the exciter is M, a lowest resonant frequency f0 obtained is present.
The formula would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to determine based upon the properties of the device. The selection of the value of 200 Hz or less would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing by routine testing an optimization of the system It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 2 Pascoe as modified further discloses wherein in a case wherein the spring constant on a vehicle interior space is K3 the lowest resonance frequency is again obtained by the formula. As in the case of claim 1 the selection of such values and frequencies would have been a matter of optimization through routine testing as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing.
With respect to claim 4 Pascoe as modified further discloses wheriern in a case where L is a length of the resin layer extending along a peripheral edge of the opening portion in an extending direction, A is a cross sectional area of a cross section of the resin layer that is orthogonal to the extending direction, and E is a Yougn’s modulus of the reisn layer, the spring constant is obtained by the formula. The sue of such a formula in detemring the spring conjstant in a resin material would jhve been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art as such is the manner of elastomeric resinous materials, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the artl Regar5ding any specific relationship this would be the result of routine testing of the structure to optimize the spring constant of the resin member.
With respect to claim 5 Pascoe as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly selecting for the claimed modulus in the claimed frequency range. The selection of the frequency range would have been an obvious matter as this is the range of human hearing. As for the selection of the range of modulus this would have been an obvious smatter of optimization of the system which would be arrived at from routine testing.
With respect to claim 6 as it regards the selection of the modulus in the claimed temperature range this would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill as such is a typical temperature range experienced by a vehicle, and the desired modulus would determine the function as a speaker diaphragm of the system.
With respect to claim 7 Pascoe further discloses wherein the resin layer (30) contains at least one of a urethane based resin (taught see para 17), a phenol based resin, a butyl resin a synthetic rubber resin, an acryl resin, an epoxy resin, a silicone resin, an epoxy silicone resin and a PVC resin.
With respect to claim 8 Pascoe further discloses wherein the exciter is attached to a peripheral portion of the window glass (see figures 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 9 Pascoe further discloses (para 14) wherein the window glass includes a shielding layer (18) configured to shield visible light at at least a part of the peripheral portion, and the exciter is attached at a position overlapping the shielding layer when viewed from a thickness direction of the window glass.
With respect to claim 10 Pascoe further discloses wherein the window glass is at least one of a windshield (shown), a rear glass, a rear quarter glass, a front quarter glass and a roof glass.
2.Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascoe (US20150298656) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Irie (US20180215240).
With respect to claim 3 Pascoe discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the window glass is laminated glass including a first glass plate disposed on the vehicle interior side, a second glass plate disposed on a vehicle exterior side and an intermediate layer sandwiched between the first glass plate and the second glass plate.
Such laminated glass plates in a vehicle windshield are known from at least Irie (para 57-61) discloses two glass layers (21 and 22 in figure 3) with intermediate layer 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Irie to use such a laminated windshield with he device of Pascoe as modified to enhance user safety by means of the known safety features of the laminated glass.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wilson (US20230249524) discloses a multilayer windshield barrier; and Akiyama (US11290807) discloses a speaker device using a vehicle window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00-5:00.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights