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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 31, 2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is unclear what it means to apply a sound-based technology using the five senses to real vehicles without any sense of difference based on the multi-sensory index (par. 0077). Without any sense of difference compared to what?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is unclear what auditory and tactile information is being sensed. The applicant merely discloses that one may perform an auditory sense and a tactile sense, but does not disclose what constitutes an auditory sense and a tactile sense. For example, it is not known if an auditory sense encompasses a human voice, a car’s horn, music played over the radio, the sound of traffic, etc.. It is not known if a tactile sense encompasses steering wheel grip, or touchscreen operation, the change in force of a driver’s or passenger’s body against the seat, etc.. Par. 0056 of the specification states that quantitative parameters associated with a tactile sense can be made by analyzing a musical variable. It is unclear how a musical variable correlates to tactile sensing. It is unclear what relationship is being drawn between the auditory and tactile senses and the emotions of the occupants of the vehicle.
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 1-20 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.
In claims 1 and 10, while it would appear that tactile stimulation may be output, it is unclear what it means to output tactile feedback.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee: Pub. No. 2020/0215294) in view of Bernstein et al. (Bernstein: Pub. No. 2018/0168498), Ruttenberg (Pub. No. 2023/0201518) and Osborne et al. (Osborne: Pub. No. 2020/0286505).
Regarding claim 1 (with parallel comments applying to patentably indistinct method claim 10), Lee discloses a multisensory index system, comprising: a processor (par. 0041, controller 140) configured to: derive parameters associated with sensed biosignals (par. 0054) including an auditory sense (voice recognition); and generate a multisensory index by analyzing a correlation between the parameters associated with the sensed biosignals (see Fig. 2 and corresponding text showing correlation of parameters indexed to emotional states).
While Lee does not explicitly refer to a tactile sense, Lee does teach that the particular sensors used are not limited to only the sensors mentioned (par. 0054). Bernstein discloses a related system for determining the emotional state of a person, wherein both auditory (speech) and tactile (touch) information is collected to further enhance the accuracy of computer calculations (pars. 0012, 0026 etc.). Clearly the types of sensors used would depend upon the particular application at hand and thus would have been considered a designer’s prerogative.
Regarding the use of quantitative parameters and the qualitative parameters associated with the auditory sense and the tactile sense, Ruttenberg discloses a multi-sensory system wherein it is taught that a mixed method incorporating both quantitative and qualitative parameters may be employed to ascertain the subject’s state of mind (pars. 0322, 0332). The mixed methods approach is a well-known research strategy which, by determining both quantitative and qualitative parameters, allows for a more nuanced understanding of the subject’s emotional state that might not be possible using only one or the other parameters. To include both quantitative and qualitative parameters associated with the auditory sense and the tactile sense would have therefore been considered a matter of obvious design to enhance the accuracy of analysis.
Regarding the limitation pertaining to the use of statistical analysis including determining contribution rates for at least the qualitative parameters by fitting a regression model to data from a user emotion evaluation database, while Lee discusses the use of statistical analysis when analyzing a correlation between parameters as discussed in the prior Office Action, Lee does not disclose the determination of contribution rates for at least the qualitative parameters by fitting a regression model to data from a user emotion evaluation database. Osborne, however, discloses a related method and system for correlating sounds to emotions that employs a linear regression model to determine contribution rates of the qualitative parameters (par. 0012: weighting/contribution rate determined by linear regression, wherein the base feature/qualitative parameters include one or more of volume, harmonicity, turbulence, rhythmicity, sharpness, etc., par. 0019). Such a feature allows one to index sounds to user emotions so as to playback to the user audio that fits a desired mood or emotion to be experienced by the listener (pars. 0033-0035). Application of the same technique to associate tactile information to an emotional map of the user in an effort to control tactile stimulation/feedback based on a desired mood or emotion would similarly be obvious by analogy to employ, as tactile stimulation is similarly used to control a user’s emotions.
Regarding the control of a sound output device to play a sound in a vehicle while outputting tactile feedback in the vehicle based on the multisensory index, Lee discloses that both sound and vibration may be used as feedback to induce a targeted emotion (pars. 0021, 0112, 0142, 0143, 0147, 0150, etc.).
Regarding claims 5 and 6 (with related comments applying to method claims 14 and 15), as argued above, the particular parameter chosen and thus the qualitative or quantitative properties best suitable for the task at hand, would have been considered an obvious matter of design dependent upon the peculiarities of the individual user and the judgement of the designer. The parameters listed are all well-known quantities associated with audio and tactile information and commonly used to define and distinguish variances in the parameters. It is also noted as indicated above, that Osborne suggests that at least loudness/volume, pitch/harmony, timbre/sharpness may be qualitative parameters associated with the auditory sense.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the number of stages that the multi-sensory index is divided into would clearly be application dependent. Lee, for example, discloses the use of 15 possible emotional stages (see Fig. 2). Depending upon the situation, various emotional stages may or may not be considered relevant. Monitoring a driver, for example, may necessitate the determination of emotions such as anger, disgust, fear, anxiety, stress, boredom, etc., to prevent accidents or calm a driver experiencing road rage, but may not necessitate the determination of love or pleasure.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the correlation between parameters associated with each stage would clearly be a matter of obvious design dependent upon routine experimentation in order to determine the most accurate settings for correctly determining the emotional state of the subject.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, note at least par. 0014 which discusses the use of feedback in order to provide emotional care based on the multi-sensory index.
Regarding new claims 19 and 20, note the comments made above pertaining to the tactile/vibrational feedback disclosed by Lee.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee: Pub. No. 2020/0215294), Bernstein et al. (Bernstein: Pub. No. 2018/0168498), Ruttenberg (Pub. No. 2023/0201518) and Osborne et al. (Pub. No. 2020/0286505) as applied to claims 1, 5-10 and 14-18 above, and further in view of the Wikipedia entries entitled “Mel-frequency cepstrum” and “Zero-crossing rate.”
Regarding claims 2-4 and 11-13, as argued above, the particular parameter chosen and thus the quantitative properties best suitable for the task at hand, would have been considered an obvious matter of design dependent upon the peculiarities of the individual user and the judgement of the designer. Zero crossing rates (ZCR) and the Mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) are well-known signal processing techniques (see Wikipedia encyclopedia entries). Both ZCRs and MFCCs are commonly used in speech recognition, music genre classification, speaker identification, etc., due to their recognized ability to mimic human hearing perception, improve speech recognition in noisy environments, differentiate tactile pressure patterns based on frequency response, etc.. To utilize these commonly found signal processing techniques in the system of Lee as modified by Bernstein and Ruttenberg in order to obtain quantitative parameters associated with the sensed auditory and tactile signals would have therefore been considered a matter of obvious design expediency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claims under §103, note the comments above specifically addressing the newly added limitations and the application of the Osborne reference. It is further noted that the applicant gives no criticality to the use of a regression model in the statistical analysis –only briefly mentioning its use in par. 0067. The applicant further does not elaborate on any art-recognized problem solved specifically by the use of a regression model. Lacking any expressed criticality, the use of a regression model –a commonly used statistical tool-- in the system of Lee would have been considered a matter of obvious design in view of Osborne as elaborated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY SCHAETZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-4954. The examiner can normally be reached 2nd Monday of the biweek and W-F.
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 E. Hamaoui can be reached at 571 270 5625. 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.
/KENNEDY SCHAETZLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
KJS
April 3, 2026