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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Separate views are not separately labeled. See two separate views of Fig. 1, for example. See also Fig. 6.
Drawing sheet numbers (“1/12”, “2/12”, etc.) are not “clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(t).
Shading does not conform to the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(m), which recites “shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. ... Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. ... Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.” See Figs. 2-3, for example.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: f.
Fewer than all drawings are “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h). The Examiner suggests enlarging and/or rotating some drawings in order to take up more of the available space on the sheets.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0031] the SPEC recites “"f" illustrated in FIG. 5 indicates a frequency.” This is inconsistent with the absence of “f” in Fig. 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 6-9, 12-13, and 19 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.
Claim 6 recites “a sound output unit configured to perform sound output by a method different from the exciter, wherein the output control unit controls driving of an audio output unit other than the exciter together with the exciter.” The limitation “driving … together” contradicts “perform sound output by a method different”.
A similar recitation in claim 19 is similarly contradictory.
Claim 9 recites “a frequency domain equal to or lower than the predetermined frequency of a sound signal input to the center channel output”. This contradicts “drives the exciter with the separated sound signal corresponding to a frequency domain exceeding the predetermined frequency” in claim 7.
Claim 9 recites “synthesizes the separated sound signal component with the sound signal input to the left and right channel output”. This contradicts “drives the sound output unit other than the exciter with the separated sound signal including a frequency domain equal to or lower than the predetermined frequency” in claim 7.
Claim 12 recites “the opposite side of the surface of the liquid crystal panel”. Opposite from what?
Claim 13 recites “driving the exciter in a range not exceeding a predetermined frequency”. This contradicts “driving the exciter in a range exceeding a predetermined frequency” in claim 1.
Other rejected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claim(s) 13: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-4, 6, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukumoto et al (US 20020149561 A1).
As recited in independent claim 1, Fukumoto et al show a display apparatus (PDA 10, for example) comprising: a display unit (including 102 and 103) including a liquid crystal panel 103; an exciter 115 that is bonded (The product by process limitations in these claims are directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process limitations or steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process limitations. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.) to an opposite side (bottom side, for example) of a surface (upper surface, for example) of the liquid crystal panel 103 and is driven to vibrate (“vibration is transmitted to the liquid crystal display panel 103a” [0156]) the liquid crystal panel 103; and an output control unit (including 114) configured to control driving the exciter 115 in a range exceeding a predetermined frequency (insofar as a frequency lower than any frequency achievable by the prior art exciter may be arbitrarily selected) based on information (whether the panel is powered on and/or touched, for example) regarding the liquid crystal panel 103 to output sound (“by applying an audible band audio signal to the coil 121 of the oscillatory actuator 115, it is possible to use the oscillatory actuator 115 as a speaker 604 (sound source)” [0306]) from the liquid crystal panel 103.
As recited in claim 2, Fukumoto et al show that the output control unit (including 114) drives the exciter 115 on a basis of the predetermined frequency (e.g., by being higher frequency than said predetermined frequency) based on the resonance frequency (“Here, the waveform of the drive signal for causing the generation of vibration from the oscillatory actuator 115 is as shown for example in FIG. 49. Note that in the figure, the frequency f.sub.0 of the drive signal is the frequency for causing resonance of … the liquid crystal display panel 103a provided with the touch panel 102” [0306]) of the liquid crystal panel 113.
As recited in claim 3, Fukumoto et al show that the output control unit 114 drives the exciter 115 on a basis of the predetermined frequency (inherently) based on an excitation force (proportional to “acceleration” [0155]) for driving the exciter 115.
As recited in claim 4, Fukumoto et al show that the output control unit 114 drives the exciter 115 on a basis of the predetermined frequency (inherently) based on weight (insofar as weight is proportional to mass and mass is inversely proportional to “acceleration” [0155]) of the liquid crystal panel 103.
As recited in claim 6, Fukumoto et al show that a sound output unit 604 configured to perform sound output (“a beep is generated” [0298]) by a method different (compare Fig. 50 to Fig. 49, for example) from the exciter 115, wherein the output control unit (including 114 and 603 taken together) controls driving of an audio output unit 604 other than the exciter 115 together with (to the extent understood) the exciter 115.
As recited in independent claim 14, Fukumoto et al show a signal processing method executed by a display apparatus as a computer 60 including: a display unit (including 102 and 103) including a liquid crystal panel 103; and an exciter 115 that is bonded (The product by process limitations in these claims are directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process limitations or steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process limitations. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.) to an opposite side (bottom side, for example) of a surface (upper surface, for example) of the liquid crystal panel 103 and is driven to vibrate (“vibration is transmitted to the liquid crystal display panel 103a” [0156]) the liquid crystal panel 103, the method comprising: controlling driving the exciter 115 in a range exceeding a predetermined frequency (insofar as a frequency lower than any frequency achievable by the prior art exciter may be arbitrarily selected) based on information (whether the panel is powered on and/or touched, for example) regarding the liquid crystal panel 103 to output sound (“by applying an audible band audio signal to the coil 121 of the oscillatory actuator 115, it is possible to use the oscillatory actuator 115 as a speaker 604 (sound source)” [0306]) from the liquid crystal panel 103.
Regarding claim 15: See teachings above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 16: See teachings above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 17: See teachings above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 19: See teachings above for claim 6.
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) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al (US 20020149561 A1).
Fukumoto et al (US 20020149561 A1) shows a display apparatus and method as described above.
As recited in claim 10, Fukumoto et al are silent regarding whether the liquid crystal panel is an edge-lit liquid crystal panel.
Official notice is taken of the fact that an edge-lit liquid crystal panel was known in the art prior to the effective filing date.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that an edge-lit liquid crystal panel was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to apply the exciter of Fukumoto et al to any panel, including an edge-lit liquid crystal panel. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to similarly improve similar panels as was known in the art.
Regarding independent claim 20: See teachings, findings, and rationale above for claim 10.
As recited in claim 20, in addition to the above teachings, Fukumoto et al show that exciter 115 includes at least one vibrating element 122 for a frequency domain output (inherently) exceeding a predetermined frequency (insofar as a frequency lower than any frequency achievable by the prior art exciter may be arbitrarily selected).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-9 and 12 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:
Regarding claims 5 and 18: The prior art of record neither shows nor suggests driv.
Regarding claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-9: Fukumoto et al disclose a lower frequency driving signal waveform for an exciter (see Fig. 49) and a higher frequency driving signal waveform for sound speaker 604 (see Fig. 50); thus, Fukumoto et al teaches away from “drives the exciter with the separated sound signal corresponding to a frequency domain exceeding the predetermined frequency, and drives the sound output unit other than the exciter with the separated sound signal including a frequency domain equal to or lower than the predetermined frequency”.
Regarding claim 11 and its dependent claim 12: A person of ordinary skill would not have had reason to modify the prior art of record in such a way as to arrive at the combination of limitations “a structure in which no air layer is provided between the exciter, a light guide plate in an edge-lit liquid crystal panel, and a liquid crystal cell” absent impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 10055951 B2) shows “DETERMINE AN ACCELERATION OF THE HAPTIC ACTUATOR” 64’ (see Fig. 7).
Misawa (US-20220312109-A1) discloses “the electronic device 1 according to the embodiment of the present disclosure can raise a prescribed range where it is difficult for a conventional electronic device that requires high-density mounting to obtain a prescribed sound volume, for example, a sound volume in a low range of less than 800 Hz (hertz), so that powerful audio playback can be realized” [0102]. See especially Figs. 10-12.
Jeong (US-20250021162-A1) shows mixed haptic and audio data (see Fig. 3) and sequentially combined haptic and audio data (see Fig. 4).
Subpac (cEvin Key (Skinny Puppy) talks about the SUBPAC,
https://youtu.be/rGkfEZk4t1M?si=UJY_8N8C1UFfVURe Aug 19, 2014) discloses audio signals presented as haptic output to a haptic vest.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
08/27/2026
Prosecution Insights