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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 1, the phrase “comprising” in line 2 should apparently be “comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAKAYAMA et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0315418).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-3, NAKAYAMA teaches a vehicle-external sound reproducing device comprising a notification unit/ small speaker [i.e., sound reproducing part] that is disposed inside a front bumper 2 [i.e., main body component] of a vehicle (abstract; fig.1, 2; paragraphs 0019, 0027) (Note; In paragraph 0019, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the notification unit includes the small speaker in and a microcomputer 8.); and
emits sound to outside of the vehicle (fig.1; paragraphs 0025-0028).
Regarding claim 2, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the sound reproducing part includes an exciter, and the exciter is installed on an inner wall of the main body component of the vehicle (fig.2; paragraphs 0019, 0024-0027, 0028, 0037, 0040).
Regarding claim 3, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the exciter is installed at a part at which a vehicle-external sound with a sound pressure level satisfying a predetermined requirement at a position with a predetermined distance and a predetermined height with respect to a traveling center line of the vehicle on the inner side of the main body component of the vehicle is able to be output (fig.2; paragraphs 0019, 0020) (Note; in paragraphs 0019-0020, NAKAYAMA teaches that the microcomputer 8 generates the notification sound from the small speaker 1 when a driving condition for notifying the presence of the vehicle is satisfied (for example, the predetermined driving condition may be a vehicle speed that is under 20 km/h). Here the sound pressure level that the pedestrian can recognize corresponds to the “sound pressure level satisfying a predetermined requirement at a position with a predetermined distance and a predetermined height with respect to a traveling center line of the vehicle”.).
Regarding claim 18, NAKAYAMA teaches a control part controlling a sound reproduction operation performed using the sound reproducing part (fig.2; paragraphs 0020-0021, 0024, 0034-0036).
Regarding claim 19, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the control part controls the sound reproduction operation performed using the sound reproducing part in accordance with an event occurring in the vehicle (paragraphs 0020-0021, 0024, 0034-0036).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, NAKAYAMA teaches radiates a sound to an outside of a vehicle. (fig.1; paragraphs 0025-0028).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 4, 6-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0315418).
Regarding claim 4, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the exciter is installed at least at one part of an inner wall of a front bumper (fig.2; paragraphs 0024-0028, 0040) (Note; in paragraph 0024, NAKAYAM teaches that a cavity portion 3 is located on a part of a front bumper 2, which is an example of a component of the vehicle and located at a front part of the vehicle whereas in 0028, NAKAYAM also teaches that small speaker 1 is disposed at the cavity portion 3.).
However, NAKAYAMA does not specifically teach an air intake duct, and an undercover. Examiner takes an official notice that an air intake duct, and an undercover are well known in the art as examples of a vehicle member in front of a vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAKAYAMA to incorporate the feature of an air intake duct, and an undercover in NAKAYAMA’s invention in order to provide proper guide outside air into an engine's air intake system.
Regarding claim 6, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the sound reproducing part includes a speaker and a sound passage constructing portion 9 [i.e., reflection plate] that is installed in front of the speaker and reflects a radiated sound of the speaker (fig.3; paragraphs 0036, 0043-0051) (Note; in paragraph 0046, NAKAYAMA teaches that the notification sound generated by the small speaker 1 is released to the outside from a sound outlet 5 through an acoustic tube formed by a sound passage constructing portion 9. Thus, it is clear that the sound passage constructing portion 9 must reflect the notification sound generated by the small speaker.).
However, NAKAYAMA does not specifically teach that the reflection plate reflects a radiated sound of the speaker. Examiner takes an official notice that the reflection plate reflecting a radiated sound of the speaker is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAKAYAMA to incorporate the feature of the reflection plate reflecting a radiated sound of the speaker in NAKAYAMA’s invention in order to provide proper guide the radiated sound into a right direction.
Regarding claim 7, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the sound reproducing part is disposed in a dead space in front of a radiator inside a front bumper (fig.1; paragraphs 0024, 0025).
Regarding claim 8, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the reflection plate reflects emitted sound of the speaker such that it converges to be able to pass through a passage provided in the main body component of the vehicle and diffuses after passing through the passage and being discharged to outside of the vehicle (fig.3; paragraphs 0036, 0043-0051).
However, NAKAYAMA does not specifically teach a narrow passage. Examiner takes an official notice that a narrow passage is well known in the art as examples of a vehicle member in front of a vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAKAYAMA to incorporate the feature of a narrow passage in NAKAYAMA’s invention in order to provide proper guide outside air through a narrow passage conveniently.
Regarding claim 16, NAKAYAMA does not specifically teach that wherein at least one of a casing of the speaker and the reflection plate is composed of glass-filled polycarbonate or another engineering plastic. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein at least one of a casing of the speaker and the reflection plate is composed of glass-filled polycarbonate or another engineering plastic are well known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAKAYAMA to incorporate the feature of wherein at least one of a casing of the speaker and the reflection plate is composed of glass-filled polycarbonate or another engineering plastic in NAKAYAMA’s invention in order to provide flexibility of using a speaker of any of glass-filled polycarbonate or another engineering plastic without having any inconvenience.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0315418) in view of YUKI et al. (Japanese Pub. No. JP2020062958A).
Regarding claim 5, NAKAYAMA teaches wherein the exciter is installed via a stand formed as a structure near an installation position of the inner wall of the main body component of the vehicle (fig.2; paragraphs 0019, 0024-0027, 0028, 0037, 0040).
However, NAKAYAMA does not specifically teach wherein the exciter is installed via stand formed as a flat structure. YUKI teaches wherein the exciter is installed via stand formed as a flat structure (fig.3, 4, item 23; 3rd paragraph in page 3, the speaker 3 in the vehicle approach notification device according to the first embodiment of the present invention includes a bracket 22 for fixing an in-vehicle device fixed to the left side member 9 with a speaker support bracket 23 interposed therebetween) (Note; the support bracket 23 in fig.4 is flat.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAKAYAMA to incorporate the feature of wherein the exciter is installed via a stand formed as a flat structure in NAKAYAMA’s invention as taught by YUKI. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide a flat surface section such that the speaker surface bracket can provide a better support for the speaker.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0315418) in view of Haase et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0207607).
Regarding claim 9, NAKAYAMA does not specifically teach that the speaker includes a high-frequency speaker and a low- frequency speaker that are coaxially disposed. NAKAYAMA teaches that a piezoelectric speaker is employed as an example of the small speaker 1. But the small speaker 1 is not limited to piezoelectric speaker (fig.3; paragraphs 0022, 0023, 0040, 0041, 0057), and may be another small speaker 1 that directly emits an audible sound (see paragraph 0057). Haase teaches that the speaker including a high-frequency speaker and a low- frequency speaker that are coaxially disposed (abstract; fig.12,13; paragraphs 0069, 0070).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAKAYAMA to incorporate the feature of the speaker including a high-frequency speaker and a low- frequency speaker that are coaxially disposed in NAKAYAMA’s invention in order emit sound in a particular direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 and 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on 571-272-7547136. 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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights