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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-11 have been examined.
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 1-11 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 1, line 10, “the sealing of which to the airflow.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sealing.” Further, it is unclear what element “of which” is referring to. Additionally, “the sealing of which to the airflow” appears grammatically incorrect. It is unclear what limitations are associated with this recitation.
Claim 4 recites “the acoustically insulating layer […] being associated with a vibration decoupling layer.” It is unclear what limitations are being claimed by the acoustically insulating layer being associated with a vibration decoupling layer (i.e. is this an additional feature of the same layer or a separate layer provided on the acoustically insulating layer?).
Claim 7 recites “an appearance rear shell, said shell forming the acoustically insulating layer under which the vibration decoupling layer is arranged.” Claim 7 recites a new element and then states it is the same as a previously provided element. It is unclear if the appearance shell, insulating layer and vibration layer are the same or different elements based on the limitations and the presentation of the claims as discussed in claim 4.
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) 1-4 and 8-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corynen (US 2022/0201385) in view of Takada et al. (US 2016/0257227) (“Takada”). Corynen teaches a headrest for a motor vehicle seat, said headrest comprising a support block (fig. 14Ai: 406a) provided with a padding cushion (fig. 14ai: Fa) made of elastically compressible foam (paragraph 0235), said block being supported by a rigid frame (fig. 14Aii: 403a) for mounting said headrest at the top of the backrest of said seat, said headrest being equipped with a generator of acoustic waves in the environment of said headrest, said headrest being characterized in that the generator comprises at least one plate (fig. 14Ai: 402-1a) on which an electrodynamic transducer is provided (fig. 14Ai: 410-1a), said plate being attached to the support block and being arranged to be excited vibrationally by said transducer in order to generate the acoustic waves, the support block comprising a rear wall which is covered with an acoustically insulating layer (fig. 14Ai: the cushion in portion 430a provides some degree of acoustic insulation). Corynen does not teach wherein the acoustically insulating layer is sealed such that airflow is sufficient to prevent the acoustic waves from passing through it.
However, Takada teaches a headrest having speakers and an acoustically insulating layer present on the rear of the headrest to prevent acoustic waves from passing therethrough (fig. 4:63a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide an acoustically insulating layer capable of preventing acoustic waves from passing through in order to provide the desired amount of sound dampening.
As concerns claim 2, Corynen, as modified, does not expressly teach wherein the acoustically insulating layer has a Young’s modulus E of less than 500 MPa. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try a material of this composition in order to provide the amount of cushioning/hardness and sound dampening desired.
As concerns claim 3, Corynan, as modified, teaches wherein the support block is fitted with a textile-based appearance layer (Corynen, fig. 14Ai: Ta; paragraph 0235), the acoustically insulating layer being arranged under said appearance layer.
As concerns claim 4, as best understood, Corynan, as modified, teaches the acoustically insulating layer being associated with a vibration decoupling layer (Takada 63a dampens sound and vibrations), but does not teach the acoustically insulating layer has a Young's modulus E greater than 500 MPa. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try a material of this composition in order to provide the amount of cushioning/hardness and sound dampening desired.
As concerns claim 7, as best understood, Corynan, as modified, teaches an appearance layer (Corynen, fig. 14Ai: Ta; paragraph 0235) which provides some acoustic insulation, as well as a vibration decoupling layer (taught by Takada, 63a, in the combination of claim 1).
As concerns claim 8, Corynan, as modified, does not teach wherein the acoustically insulating layer has a mass per unit area of between 400 g/m2 and 2 kg/m2. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try a material of this composition in order to provide the amount of cushioning/hardness and sound dampening desired.
As concerns claim 9, Corynan, as modified, teaches wherein the support block is provided with at least one cavity (Corynan, fig. 14Ai: P) in which the plate is attached, said cavity having an aperture opening into a front wall of said block (as shown in fig. 14Ai).
As concerns claim 10, Corynan, as modified, teaches the plate has a Young's modulus E which is greater than 10 MPa (Corynan, paragraph 0168).
As concerns claim 11, Corynan, as modified, teaches an assembly for generating acoustic waves in a motor vehicle passenger compartment, said assembly comprising a headrest according to claim 1 (fig. 14Ai), and a system for controlling at least one transducer to excite vibrationally the plate on which it is provided (a system to provide the audio for transmitting through the speaker/transducer and plate is inherently present in order to operate for its intended purpose).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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: The prior art references of Corynan and Takada fail to teach:
the vibration decoupling layer is based on an elastomer material with a Young's modulus E of less than 40 kPa; or
the vibration decoupling layer is based on an elastomer material with an ETA loss factor greater than 0.25.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
