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 .
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 1-4 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.
Claim1 recites “a vehicle communication device disposed inside the instrument panel and mounted on the instrument panel”. This claim is indefinite as it is not clear exactly what is being claimed. The first part of the recitation requires that the device be “inside” the panel and the second part of the recitation requires that the device is mounted “on” the instrument panel. Although there can be various correct interpretations of this recitation, it would be more clear if the recitation expressly stated that the device is mounted to an undersurface of the instrument panel and is thus covered by the instrument panel.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20200376925).
Regarding claim 1: Zhang discloses a mounting structure for a vehicle communication device 54 (Figs. 1, 2; [0029]). Zhang discloses that the mounting structure comprises an instrument panel 14 (Fig. 1, [0051]). Zhang discloses a vehicle communication device 54 disposed inside the instrument panel and mounted on the instrument panel (Figs. 1, 2 – the communication device 54 is at least partially inside the instrument panel and is mounted on the instrument panel). Zhang discloses an air conditioning duct 26, 30, 110 that is part of a vehicle air conditioner (Figs. 1, 2; [0028], [0031]). Zhang discloses the air conditioning duct including a connection portion to which the vehicle communication device is connectable and a portion of the air conditioning duct different from the connection portion being fixed to, and supported by, the instrument panel (Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6 – these figures illustrate the limitation as recited; the figure illustrate that the air conditioning ducts at least contact/support/affix the device 54 in place).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawaya et al. (US 20220321684) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20200376925).
Zhang discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 1: Sawaya discloses a mounting structure for a vehicle communication device 10 (Fig. 7; [0039], [0070], [0073]). Sawaya discloses the mounting structure comprising an instrument panel 2 (Figs. 6, 7; [0071]). Sawaya discloses a vehicle communication device 10 disposed inside the instrument panel 2 and mounted on the instrument panel 2 (Fig. 7; [0072], [0073]).
Sawaya is silent regarding and air conditioner and thus does not explicitly disclose an air conditioning duct that is part of a vehicle air conditioner, the air conditioning duct including a connection portion to which the vehicle communication device is connectable, and a portion of the air conditioning duct different from the connection portion being fixed to, and supported by, the instrument panel. Zhang discloses an air conditioning duct 26, 30, 110 that is part of a vehicle air conditioner (Figs. 1, 2; [0028], [0031]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sawaya so as to include an air conditioning duct that is part of a vehicle air conditioner as taught by Zhang. As vehicles are known to have air conditioners and duct work therefor, as Sawaya is simply silent regarding air conditioners, and as Zhang explicitly teaches an air conditioning duct that is part of a vehicle air conditioner, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired component to include in a vehicle from a finite selection of components suitable for a vehicle (i.e. including an air conditioner or excluding an air conditioner). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Sawaya, as modified by Zhang, discloses that the air conditioning duct includes a connection portion to which the vehicle communication device is connectable and a portion of the air conditioning duct different from the connection portion being fixed to, and supported by, the instrument panel (Zhang - Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6 – these figures illustrate the limitation as recited; the figure illustrate that the air conditioning ducts at least contact/support/affix the device 54 in place).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawaya et al. (US 20220321684) and Zhang et al. (US 20200376925), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kadowaki (US 20220307570).
Sawaya and Zhang disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2: Sawaya, as modified by Zhang, does not explicitly disclose that an elastically deformable elastic member is interposed between the vehicle communication device and the connection portion. Kadowaki discloses using an elastically deformable elastic member interposed between vibrating members of the vehicle (title; [0003]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sawaya, as modified by Zhang, so as to include an elastically deformable elastic member interposed between vibrating members as taught by Kadowaki so as to be included between the communication device and the connection portion of Sawaya, as modified by Zhang. As vibration damping in vehicles is very well known, as Sawaya, as modified by Zhang, is silent regarding vibration damping between connections, and a Kadowaki explicitly teaches vibration damping, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired connection structure from a finite selection of connection structures suitable for a vehicle (i.e. including vibration damping structure or excluding such structure). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Automobiles having air conditioners, ducts, communications devices, instrument panels, and dashboard are very well known in the art. The supporting structures for the instrument panel/dashboard as well as the duct work and communication devices is also well known. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Sawaya et al. (US 20220321684), Zhang et al. (US 20200376925), Kadowaki (US 20220307570), Ito et al. (US 20030193207), Nishijima et al. (US 5549344), Muramatsu et al. (US 20240109599), Ogata et al. (US 20240023267), Oshima et al (US 20160233563), Choi et al. (US 11873029), Kurokawa et al. (US 20230182824), Kehimker et al. (US 20200247478), Yoshinaka (US 6110037), and Roan et al. (US 5673964). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a mounting structure for a vehicle communication device, an instrument panel/dashboard, a vehicle communication device disposed inside the instrument panel and mounted on the instrument panel, an air conditioning duct that is part of a vehicle air conditioner, the air conditioning duct including a connection portion to which the vehicle communication device is connectable, a portion of the air conditioning duct different from the connection portion being fixed to, and supported by, the instrument panel, and an elastically deformable elastic member is interposed between the vehicle portions. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited damping structure of the recited structural components. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed resonant frequency cancellation between the communication device, the road surface, and the air conditioning system and the remaining recited apparatus structure and the overall relationship to the vehicle. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
8/17/2026
Prosecution Insights