Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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.
Claims 1–4 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0062176 (published 27 February 2020) (“Ishibashi”) and US Patent Application Publication 2023/0121224 (20 April 2023) (“Lee”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ishibashi; Lee; US Patent Application Publication 2018/031700 (published 01 November 2018) (“Ham”) and US Patent 5,920,039 (patented 06 July 1999) (“Coté).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ishibashi; Lee; US Patent 5,898,392 (patented 27 April 1999) (“Bambini”) and US Patent Application Publication 2013/0194650 (published 01 August 2013) (“Roth”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “an interior structure of a vehicle.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed structure and the Ishibashi reference.
Claim 1
The Ishibashi Reference
“1. An interior structure of a vehicle, comprising:
The Ishibashi reference describes the interior structure of a vehicle—namely, a roof structure 101—that corresponds to the claimed interior structure of a vehicle. Ishibashi at ¶ 30, FIG.1.
“a roof console disposed on a ceiling portion inside a vehicle cabin; and
Ishibashi’s roof 101 includes a roof module 1 corresponding to the claimed roof console. Id. at ¶¶ 30–33, FIG.1. Like the claimed roof console, roof module 1 is disposed on the interior surface 101a of roof 101, which defines a vehicle cabin. Id.
“an exciter configured to generate vibrations according to an acoustic signal,
Roof module 1 includes a speaker, or exciter that produces guidance, warning and voice sounds (i.e., it generates vibrations according to an acoustic signal). Id. at ¶ 97.
“wherein the roof console includes a console main body in which input and output devices are mounted, and
Roof module 1 further includes a housing 10 formed in part by a main body 7 used to mount input and output devices, such as a light source 4, light guide 5, display 6, a camera 26 and a speaker. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 97, FIG.5.
“a console panel made of a hard resin to cover a side of the console main body that faces an inside of the vehicle cabin, and
Roof module 1 includes a cover panel 8 made of hard resin that covers main body 7 on the inside of the vehicle cabin. Id. at ¶¶ 36–37, FIGs.2, 5.
“the exciter is mounted on the console panel.”
Ishibashi describes installing a speaker inside housing 10. Id. at ¶ 97. However, Ishibashi does not describe mounting the speaker on cover panel 8.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Ishibashi reference describes an overhead console that corresponds closely to the claimed interior structure of a vehicle. Despite its relevance to the claimed invention, the Ishibashi reference does not anticipate the claim because Ishibashi does not describe mounting an exciter (e.g., a speaker) on a console panel, such as Ishibashi’s cover 8.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Ishibashi reference describes a roof module 1 whose housing 10 includes a main body 7 and a cover 8. Ishibashi at ¶¶ 36–37, FIGs.2, 5. Ishibashi describes locating a speaker within housing 10 but does not describe precisely how to mount and operate the speaker within the housing. Id. at ¶ 97.
The Lee reference, like Ishibashi and the claimed invention, is drawn to the field of vehicle interior structures. Lee at ¶¶ 513–515, FIG.32. Lee describes in detail a vibration apparatus corresponding to the claimed exciter. Lee’s vibration apparatus is configured to vibrate a surface to which it is attached in order to produce sound. Id. at ¶¶ 109, 141–154, FIGs.1–3. Lee further describes locating the vibration apparatus in an overhead console 530I between a console box and a console cover. Id. at ¶¶ 513–515, FIG.32. The vibration apparatus is fixed to the cover in order to vibrate the cover and produce sound, in place of a conventional speaker. Id.
Read in light of the Ishibashi reference, the Lee reference reasonably suggests a modification of Ishibashi’s roof module 1. Ishibashi’s roof module 1 is essentially a base device that contains a speaker within housing 10. Notably, Ishibashi does not describe the type of speaker or exactly how to mount and operate the speaker, leaving implementation to one of ordinary skill. Lee similarly describes the inclusion of a speaker in a roof module, or overhead console in Lee’s terminology and suggests a method for forming the speaker in a roof module. However, rather than use a conventional speaker, Lee describes a vibration apparatus configured to vibrate an attached surface. Specifically in connection with an overhead console, Lee describes attaching the vibration apparatus to the cover of the console, between the console’s box (i.e., main body) and its cover. Thus, the vibration apparatus will vibrate in response to an input acoustic signal and vibrate the panel to create sound in the vehicle cabin. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably modified Ishibashi’s roof module 1 to include a vibration apparatus like the one described and taught by the Lee reference. The vibration apparatus, or exciter, would be attached to Ishibashi’s cover 8, such as at position 8A/83, in order to vibrate the cover and produce sound in response to an input acoustic signal, such as any of Ishibashi’s described guidance, warnings or voices. See Lee at ¶¶ 513–515, FIG.32; Ishibashi at ¶ 97; FIGs.2, 5, 11. See also Figure 1, below (indicating one potential location for positioning Lee’s vibration apparatus in order to vibrate Ishibashi’s cover 8.) For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi and the Lee references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Ishibashi at FIG.13 (marked-up to show possible location for the addition of a vibration apparatus to vibrate cover 8).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the exciter is mounted on an upper surface of a substantially flat plate portion of the console panel.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to locate a vibration apparatus, or exciter, like the one taught by Lee, on an upper surface of Ishibashi’s cover 8 at positions 8A or 83. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi and the Lee references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“wherein the exciter is mounted in a free end region of the console panel that is not fixed to either a roof panel of a vehicle body or the console main body.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to locate a vibration apparatus, or exciter, like the one taught by Lee, on an upper surface of Ishibashi’s cover 8 at positions 8A or 83. Positions 8A and 83 are similarly free end regions that are not attached to a roof panel, vehicle body or console main body. See Ishibashi at FIGs.2, 13. See also Figure 1, above. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi and the Lee references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein an outer edge portion of the free end region is formed to have a substantially arc shape when seen from above, and
“the exciter is disposed at a position spaced apart from the outer edge portion having the substantially arc shape.”
Ishibashi’s roof module 1 has a similar substantial arc shape that is approximated by a U shape. Ishibashi at ¶ 39, FIG.13 (describing light guide member 5, which forms the outer periphery of cover 8 as U-shaped). See also Figure 1, above. The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, further shows the obviousness of locating Lee’s vibration apparatus as claimed. See Figure 1, above. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi and the Lee references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“wherein the roof console has an emergency switch that is pushed upward in an emergency, and
“the emergency switch is disposed at a position recessed upward from the substantially flat plate portion of the console panel on which the exciter is mounted.”
The Ishibashi reference does not include a dedicated emergency services button in roof module 1. The Bambini reference describes the inclusion of an emergency button 104 in an overhead console 100. Bambini at col., 6 ll. 57–67, FIG.2. The Roth reference further describes adding an emergency services button to a vehicle and recessing it to prevent accidental operation. Roth at ¶ 80. These teachings concerning the addition of feature to a roof module, would have reasonably suggested modifying Ishibashi’s roof module 1 to similarly include a dedicated emergency services button and to recess it away from panel 8 to prevent accidental operation. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi, the Lee, the Bambini and the Roth references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the exciter includes a voice coil that converts a signal current into vibration, and
“a middle portion of a wire connected to the voice coil is fixed to the roof panel of the vehicle body.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, based on the teachings of Lee shows the obviousness of implementing Ishibashi’s speaker as a vibration apparatus coupled to and vibrating Ishibashi’s cover 8. Lee describes the vibration apparatus as a piezoelectric transducer, not as a dynamic transducer that includes a voice coil. Id. at ¶ 112; but see Lee at ¶ 4 (describing the use of a dynamic actuator). The Ishibashi reference also does not address how to route wires to its speaker.
The Ham reference, like Lee, describes a vibration apparatus used to vibrate a flat panel. Ham at Abs., ¶¶ 2–10. Ham further relates to the teachings of Lee by describing the vibration of a flat panel display. Id.; Lee at ¶ 109, FIGs.1, 2. Ham teaches that either piezoelectric or dynamic transducers are useful in vibrating flat panels. Ham at ¶¶ 53, 64. For example, Ham describes a dynamic transducer that includes a frame 411, a magnetic circuit 413 (including coil 413c) and a damper 415 that are formed in contact with the rear 200b of a flat panel 200 in order to vibrate the panel to generate sound. Id. at ¶¶ 57–78, FIG.4. Accordingly, given the art recognized equivalence of piezoelectric and dynamic drivers for driving flat panels, it would have been obvious to alternatively use a dynamic transducer having a voice coil in place of a piezoelectric transducer to drive Ishibashi’s panel 8.
The Coté reference describes a vehicle headliner designed to facilitate installation of the headliner and the wires needed for speakers. Coté at col. 3 ll. 1–10, 45–54, FIGs.2, 3. The headliner includes a support bar 26 to hold the speakers and a harness 25 to provide electrical connections to the speakers. Id. This reasonably suggests locating harnesses in Ishibashi’s headliner to similarly facilitate installation of the speaker wiring. See id. at col. 3 ll. 45–54. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi, the Lee, the Ham and the Coté references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the exciter is disposed at a substantially central position in a vehicle width direction above front seats inside the vehicle cabin.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to locate a vibration apparatus, or exciter, like the one taught by Lee, on an upper surface of Ishibashi’s cover 8 at positions 8A or 83. Positions 8A and 83 include a central portion that is suitable for vibration because it provides an open area for Lee’s vibration apparatus. See Lee at ¶¶ 365–368, (locating vibration apparatuses in the center of their respective vibration region); Ishibashi at FIGs.2, 13. See also Figure 1, above. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi and the Lee references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the roof console further includes a camera configured to capture an image of the inside of the vehicle cabin, and a map lamp configured to illuminate a region near the front seat inside the vehicle cabin, and the camera, the map lamp, and the exciter are disposed on the roof console in this order from a front of the vehicle.”
Ishibashi’s roof module 1 similarly includes a camera 26, a light/map lamp 5 located in the roof console. If one of ordinary skill located Lee’s vibration apparatus at the position highlighted in Figure 1, above, then the camera 26, light 5 and vibration apparatus would be ordered as claimed since light 5 includes a string of lights that extends between the position of camera 26 and the potential location of the vibration apparatus. See Ishibashi at FIGs.2, 5, 13. See also Figure 2, below. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ishibashi and the Lee references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
454
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Marked-up version of Ishibashi at FIG.2 (marked-up to show relative locations of elements, including a vibration apparatus/exciter added to the roof module 1).
Summary
Claims 1–8 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Additional Citations
The following table lists documents identified as being relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed in this Application. Applicant is advised to review the documents in preparing a response to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
US 2013/0120864
Arc-shaped console
Table 2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights