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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 2/15/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of this application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/13/25 are acceptable to the examiner.
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 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: The structure of the vehicle apparatus that in used to incorporate the seat as set forth ins not provided in the claim.
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 (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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 10-12, 17-18, 20-22, 24, 30, 37, 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyoshi et al. (US 2025/0317687 A1).
Re claim 1: Miyoshi et al teaches (as depicted in figures 2, 4, 9 and 14) a headrest (3), comprising:
a headrest frame (31);
a support rod part (30) connected to a lower surface of the headrest frame;
a cushion member (31A) at a front surface of the headrest frame;
a sound generating apparatus (43,40) configured between the headrest frame and the cushion member to output a sound; and
a sheath member (skin T), paragraph [0200] on a rear surface and a lateral surface of the headrest frame and at a front surface and a lateral surface of the cushion member.
Re claim 20: Miyoshi et al. teaches a headrest (figures 2, 4, 9 and 14), comprising:
a headrest part (3);
a first sound generating apparatus (33, 43(40)) on the left side of the headrest connected to a first lateral surface of the headrest part;
a second sound generating apparatus (33, 43(40) on the right side of the headrest connected to a second lateral surface which is opposite to the first lateral surface of the headrest part; and
a sheath member ((skin T), paragraph [0200]) on the headrest part, the first sound generating apparatus, and the second sound generating apparatus,
wherein each of the first sound generating apparatus and the second sound generating apparatus comprises:
an enclosure (moveable portions (33)) connected to the headrest part;
a cushion member (31a, figures 9, 14) at a front surface of the enclosure; and
a vibration apparatus (speakers 43(40)) configured between the enclosure and the cushion member to output a sound.
Re claim 40: Miyoshi et al. in addition to the specifics of the headrest as discussed with respect to claim 1 additionally teaches a seat part (2, Sh) a backseat part (1, Sh) connected to the seat part (see figure 4) with the headrest connected to the upper portion of the backseat part
Re claim 41: Miyoshi et al. in addition to the specifics of the headrest as discussed with respect to claim 1 additionally teaches a seat cushion (2) and a seat back (1, Sh) with the headrest connected to an upper portion of the seat back (figure 2)
Re claim 42: see figures 1 and 8 depicting a vehicle (v) in which a seat(s) are within.
Re claim 3: as seen from figure 4, the headrest frame includes an accommodating portion for the sound generating apparatus.
Re claim 4: See figure 14 in which the cushion member includes a hollow portion to accommodate the accommodating portion.
Re claims 6, 30 and 37: See figure 9 teaching the use of substantially rectangular members (not labelled) that surround the speaker an which would block sound and allow sound to by focused toward the front of these members.
Re claim 10: See figure 4 in which the headrest frame (31) includes a base frame that is connected to the support rod (those portions that touch each other) and includes at least three regions with a first region (that portion immediately in back of the right speaker) and a second region (that portion immediately in back of the left speaker) and third region that surrounds the first and second regions. Also taught are first and second accommodation portions (that portion of rectangular casings that surround each speaker)
Re claim 11: note each speaker (43,40) are used as vibration apparatus and are present in corresponding accommodating portions
Re claim 12: see teaching in paragraph [0149} in which different sounds (loudness of sounds) is controlled in the left and right speakers based on a seating position/posture of an occupant of the seat.
Re claim 17: note the use of a cover (Skin T) that covers the headrest (paragraph [0200] and which as seen from figure 9 includes one or more holes (see plurality of hexagonal shapes) that overlap that potion in which each vibration apparatus is present
Re claim 18: as seen from figure 14 cushion member (3) includes hollow portions into which the speakers are placed and in which are overlapping with those sound emission portions of the cover, Skin T
Re claim 21: see teaching in paragraph [0149] volume control in each speaker which provides different sounds, i.e. loudness of sounds
Re claim 22: tilting of each sound generating apparatus us performed through use of moveable portions (33)
Re claim 24: see figure 9 teaching a headrest frame 31b, a cushion member (31a) and a support rod (30) connected to the frame
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.
Claim(s) 2, 7-8, 13-16, 23, 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. in view of Konno (US 2024/0101010 A1).
Re claims 2 and 23: The teaching of Miyoshi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Miyoshi et al. does not teach that the sound generating element includes a piezoelectric material. Konno teaches in a similar environment that a piezoelectric element (120) can be used to vibrate a diaphragm for sound generating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature taught by Konno into the headrest of Miyoshi et al. to predictably provide an alternative way of sound generation. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claims 7, 13 and 25: The teaching of Miyoshi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Miyoshi et al. does not teach a vibration member and vibration element. Konno teaches in a similar environment that a vibration element (piezoelectric element (120)) can be used to vibrate a vibration member (diaphragm) for sound generating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature taught by Konno into the headrest of Miyoshi et al. to predictably provide an alternative way of sound generation. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention
Re claim 8: note in Konno, the sound generating arrangement is covered by a covering material (140) and includes a sound emission portion corresponding to the vibration element (that portion of the cover directly in front of diaphragm (110)
Re claims 14, 26: see paragraph [0021] of Konno teaching materials used for the vibration member (diaphragm) including at least metal satisfying a material used as set forth
Re claims 15, 27: See Konno teaching that the vibration part can include a piezoelectric material (paragraph [0023]), a cover ((14) and signal supply member (that member used to supply inputted electrical signals, paragraph [0023]
Re claims 16, 28: note that the signal supply member in Konno must be between the cover and a vibration part in order the provide signals to drive such vibration part due to its connection to the vibration part that is inside cover.
Claim(s) 5, 19 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. in view of Haney et al. (US 2020/0214480 A1).
Re claims 5 and 19: The teaching of Miyoshi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Miyoshi et al. does not teach the use of a cushion pad that is accommodated in the cushion member as set forth in claims 5 and 19. Haney et al. teaches in a similar environment to use a cushion pad (26) within a cushion member (1) to relieve pressure on a user’s ear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this feature taught by Haney et al. into the headrest arrangement of Miyoshi et al. to predictably provide a means to relieve pressure on a user’s ear. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 38: Miyoshi et al. teaches a headrest comprising an enclosure (31), figures 4 and 9) for accommodating a sound generating apparatus (43 (40)) for outputting sound from a front portion and a cushion member (31a). Miyoshi et al. does not teach that the cushion member includes a hollow portion in which a porous cushion pad is within. Haney et al. teaches in a similar environment a cushion member having a hollow portion (Speaker recess (25) into which a porous cushion pad (26) is inserted to relieve pressure on a user’s ear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this feature taught by Haney et al. into the headrest arrangement of Miyoshi et al. to predictably provide a means to relieve pressure on a user’s ear. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. in view of Konno (US 2024/0101010 A1) as applied to claim 2, 7-8, 13-16, 23, 25-28 above, and further in view of Haney et al. (US 2020/0214480 A1).
Re claim 9: the teaching of Miyoshi et al. in view of Konno (US 2024/0101010 A1) is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach a cushion member and pad as set forth. Haney et al. teaches in a similar environment to use a cushion pad (26) within a cushion member (1) to relieve pressure on a user’s ear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this feature taught by Haney et al. into the headrest arrangement of Miyoshi et al. to predictably provide a means to relieve pressure on a user’s ear. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. in view of Fujikake et al. (US 2019/0118688 A1).
Re claim 31: The teaching of Miyoshi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Miyoshi et al. does not teach a third sound generating apparatus that outputs sounds which differ from the first and second sound generating apparatus. Fujikake et al. teaches in a similar environment to use a third speaker (25c) outputting “woofer” sounds that is different from speakers (25a, 25b), full range sound thereby providing the user a fuller audio experience due to the frequency ranges of audio output in each speaker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to incorporate a third sound generating apparats as taught by Fujikake et al. into the acoustic system arrangement of Miyoshi et al. to predictably provide the user a fuller audio experience due to the frequency ranges of audio output in each speaker. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention
Re claim 32: note the third speaker (25c) taught by Fujikake et al. is a woofer speaker (paragraph [0040])
Re claim 33: Additionally, Fujikake et al. teaches a headrest frame (8), cushion member (14) and support rod part (7a, 7b) allowing for accommodation of the third sound generating apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such needed structure of Fujiakke et al. into the arrangement of Miyoshi et al. to predictably allow for accommodation of the third sound generating apparatus. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention
Re claim 34: note in Fujikake et al., figure 6 providing ports (at least in the form of a mesh (29) allowing for the “woofer” sounds (S2) generated to outputted
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. in view of Fujikake et al. (US 2019/0118688 A1) as applied to claims 31-34 above, and further in view of Konno (US 2024/0101010 A).
Re claim 35: the teaching of Miyoshi et al. in view of Fujikake et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Additionally, Miyoshi et al. teaches in figures 4 and 9 to use first and second enclosures for the speakers used. The combination of Miyoshi et al. in view of Fujikake et al. as applied does not teach that the speakers include an actuator that includes a magnet, coil and cover plate. Konno teaches in a similar environment that the speakers include a magnet (121), magnet (121) and cover plate (123) can be used to provide sound from a headrest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the specifics of speaker as taught by Konno as the speaker arrangements used in Miyoshi et al. and Fujikake et al. as applied to predictably provide an alternative way for producing sounds for a headrest. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filling of the invention.
Re claim 36: note in Fujikake et al., figure 6 providing a mesh that inherently consists of a plurality of openings. Two of these openings are considered as the first and second sound ports as set forth that allow sounds (S2) generated to outputted
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. in view of Haney et al. (US 2020/0214480 A1) as applied to claim 5,19 and 38 above, and further in view of Konno.
Re claim 39: The teaching of Miyoshi et al. in view of Haney et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach a vibration member and vibration element. Konno teaches in a similar environment that a vibration element (piezoelectric element (120)) can be used to vibrate a vibration member (diaphragm) for sound generating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature taught by Konno into the headrest of Miyoshi et al. in view of Haney et al. as applied to predictably provide an alternative way of sound generation. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 7/21/26
Prosecution Insights