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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection detailed below as they are directed towards the newly amended claims and are addressed below.
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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation that the processor is configured to determine a direction of the sound based on determining a sound transducer “that most clearly detects the sound.” It is not understood as to how the determination of which signal is “clearest” is to be made however. For example, if it is the transducer which detects the loudest sound, or the least amount of noise, the most stable frequency, etc. Based on the specification, the transducer appears to be piezoelectric and would therefore respond to vibrations or pressure waves generated by the sound source, which would seemingly output a stronger signal (i.e. higher voltage) the closer to the source the transducer is. Therefore, it will be assumed for purposes of examination that this is how the transducer operates and this is what is meant by “clearly detecting the sound.”
Claim 10 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 which present the same issues with respect to “clearly” detecting the sound, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 and claim 10 which present the same issues with respect to “clearly” detecting the sound, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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.
Regarding claim 1, similar to above, the claim recites the limitation that the processor is configured to determine a direction of the sound based on determining a sound transducer “that most clearly detects the sound.” It is not understood as to what is meant by the term “clearly” and what would be the most “clear” signal in a group of signals. For example, if it is the signal generated by the transducer which detects the loudest sound, or the least amount of noise, the most stable frequency, etc. Based on the specification, the transducer appears to be piezoelectric and would therefore respond to vibrations or pressure waves generated by the sound source, which would seemingly output a stronger signal (i.e. higher voltage) the closer to the source the transducer is. Therefore, it will be assumed for purposes of examination that this is how the transducer operates and this is what is meant by “clearly detecting the sound.”
Claim 10 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 which present the same issues with respect to “clearly” detecting the sound, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 and claim 10 which present the same issues with respect to “clearly” detecting the sound, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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) 1-6, 9-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingli et al. US 2021/0132176 and Michau FR 3081907.
Regarding claim 1, Dingli teaches a monitoring system of a vehicle comprising a plurality of sound detection devices 104A, 104B including sound transducers (microphone, paragraph 0049), each transducer attached to a respective component of the vehicle (paragraph 0049) to detect vibrations due to sound originating from an external environment around the vehicle (acoustic signals 232, 240 etc.), a processor ECU 108 configured to detect a signal generated by the sound transducers, the signal indicative of the sound (paragraph 0051), each sound transducer located at a different region of the vehicle (see for example, fig. 2A-2C). Dingli further teaches the processor as configured to determine a direction of the source based on the sound transducers and the intensity of the signal detected (paragraph 0051) which therefore determines the direction of source based on the transducer that most clearly detects the sound (a higher intensity would indicate a clearer signal), the direction based on a region in which the determined sound transducer is located (the most intense signal would correspond to that transducer’s region). Dingli does not explicitly disclose the sound transducers as being attached to a transparent component of the vehicle which detects the vibrations of the respective transparent component as claimed, but rather that the transducers are generally located on different portions of the vehicle. Therefore, Dingli differs from the claim based on the location of the sensors themselves.
Michau teaches transducers 3 which is attached to a transparent component of a vehicle (windshield, fig. 2) and detects vibrations of the transparent component (the acoustic transducers 3 detect and dampen acoustic waves, paragraph 0002). Since the transducers of Michau are directed towards automotive acoustic sensing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the Michau with those of Dingli, which is analogous art in the field of automotive sensing, by providing similar transducers to those of Michau within the transparent windows of the automobile for detecting the sounds in the same manner as Dingli for processing and detecting of the external environment around the vehicle in order to reduce the need for the external sensors of Dingli and to protect them by locating them within the laminated glass surfaces while maintaining their functionality. In combination, the transducers would be in different regions of the vehicle as they are disposed throughout the glass which can be defined as regions.
Regarding claim 2, in combination with Dingli, the respective transparent component of Michau is comprised of a first rigid transparent layer 2 bonded to a second rigid transparent layer 6 by a deformable material 7 (interlayer of viscoelastic material) and each sound transducer 3 is disposed in the deformable layer (fig. 4). In combination with Dingli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have maintained this structure to allow for the transducer to be mounted in the windshield or windows of the vehicle of Dingli, thereby preserving the functionality of the transducers.
Regarding claim 3, depending on the arrangement of the transparent layer when installed, the first rigid layer 2 of Michau would be defined as an external layer, the second rigid layer 6 would be an internal layer and each sound transducer 3 would be disposed in contact with the external layer as seen in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 4, as seen in fig. 4 of Michau, the sound transducer is affixed to an interior surface of the respective transparent component as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, in combination with Dingli, each sound transducer of Michau includes a piezoelectric material as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, in combination, the system of Dingli and Michau is configured to output a direction of the source as claimed (Dingli, abstract) since the operations and detection would remain the same.
Regarding claim 9, in combination, the respective transparent component of Dingli when combined with the transducers of Michau is laminated glass as claimed and forms vehicle window (Michau, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Dingli teaches a method of monitoring an environment around a vehicle comprising detecting sound with a plurality sound detection devices 104a, 104b including sound transducers (microphone, paragraph 0049) each attached to a respective component of the vehicle (paragraph 0049) wherein detecting the sound includes detecting vibrations of the respective component, due to sound originating from an external environment around the vehicle (acoustic signals 232, 240 etc.), and with a processor ECU 108, detecting a signal generated by the sound transducer, the signal indicative of the sound (paragraph 0051), each sound transducer located at a different region of the vehicle, and generating a notification indicative of the sound since any sound detected is processed by computing device 602. Dingli further teaches the processor as configured to determine a direction of the source based on the sound transducers and the intensity of the signal detected (paragraph 0051) which would therefore determine the direction of source based on the transducer that most clearly detects the sound (a higher intensity would be a clearer signal), the direction based on a region in which the determined sound transducer is located (the most intense signal would correspond to that transducer’s region). Dingli does not explicitly disclose the sound transducers as being attached to a transparent component of the vehicle which detects the vibrations of the transparent component as claimed.
Michau teaches a transducer 3 which is attached to a transparent component of a vehicle (windshield, fig. 2) and detects vibrations of the transparent component (the acoustic transducers 3 detect and dampen acoustic waves, paragraph 0002). Since the transducers are directed towards automotive acoustic sensing, which is analogous art in the field of automotive sensing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Michau with those of Dingli by providing similar transducers to those of Michau within the transparent windows of the automobile for detecting the sounds in the same manner as Dingli for processing and detecting of the external environment around the vehicle in order to reduce the need for external sensors and to protect them by locating them within the laminated glass surfaces. In combination, the transducers would be in different regions of the vehicle as they are disposed throughout the glass which can be defined as regions.
Regarding claim 11, in combination with Dingli, the transparent component of Michau is comprised of a first rigid transparent layer 2 bonded to a second rigid transparent layer 6 by a deformable material 7 (interlayer of viscoelastic material) and each sound transducer 3 is disposed in the deformable layer (fig. 4). In combination with Dingli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have maintained this structure to allow for the transducer to be mounted in the windshield or windows of the vehicle of Dingli, thereby preserving the functionality of the transducers.
Regarding claim 12, depending on the arrangement of the transparent layer when installed, the first rigid layer 2 can be defined as an external layer, the second rigid layer 6 would be an internal layer and each sound transducer 3 would be disposed in contact with the external layer as seen in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 13, as seen in fig. 4 of Michau, each sound transducer is affixed to an interior surface of the respective transparent component as claimed which would remain when combined with Dingli in the manner above.
Regarding claim 14, in combination, the system of Dingli and Michau is configured to output a direction of the source as claimed (Dingli, abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Dingli teaches a vehicle system comprising a memory having computer readable instructions and a processor 602 for executing the instructions to perform a method of monitoring an environment around a vehicle comprising detecting sound with a plurality of sound detection devices 104a, 104b including sound transducers (microphone, paragraph 0049) attached to a respective component of the vehicle (paragraph 0049) wherein detecting the sound includes detecting vibrations due to sound originating from an external environment around the vehicle (acoustic signals 232, 240 etc.), and with a processor ECU 108, detecting a signal generated by the sound transducer, the signal indicative of the sound (paragraph 0051) and generating a notification indicative of the sound since any sound detected is processed by computing device 602. Dingli further teaches the processor as configured to determine a direction of the source based on the sound transducers and the intensity of the signal detected (paragraph 0051) which would therefore determine the direction of source based on the transducer that most clearly detects the sound (a higher intensity would be a clearer signal), the direction based on a region in which the determined sound transducer is located (the most intense signal would correspond to that transducer’s region). Dingli does not explicitly disclose the sound transducers as being attached to a respective transparent component of the vehicle which detects the vibrations of the transparent component as claimed.
Michau teaches transducers 3 which is attached to a transparent component of a vehicle (windshield, fig. 2) and detects vibrations of the transparent component (the acoustic transducers 3 detect and dampen acoustic waves, paragraph 0002). Since the transducers are directed towards automotive acoustic sensing, which is analogous art in the field of automotive sensing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Michau with those of Dingli by providing similar transducers to those of Michau within the transparent windows of the automobile for detecting the sounds in the same manner as Dingli for processing and detecting of the external environment around the vehicle in order to reduce the need for external sensors and to protect them by locating them within the laminated glass surfaces.
Regarding claim 18, in combination, the system of Dingli and Michau is configured to output a direction of the source as claimed (Dingli, abstract).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 15, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingli and Michau, and further in view of Laine US 2016/0272215.
Regarding claim 7, Dingli and Michau teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the monitoring as outputting the indication by controlling a speaker of the vehicle corresponding to the direction.
Laine discloses a system for monitoring an obstacle in relation to a vehicle which includes monitoring the obstacle and generating audible alerts to indicate the direction of the obstacle with relation to the speakers in the car (paragraph 0062) and outputting a sound in indication of that direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Laine with those of Dingli and Michau in order to provide an audible alert to anyone in the vehicle as to a rough location where an obstacle or other vehicle might be located to avoid a collision.
Regarding claim 8, the location of the obstacle in Laine is emitted from the speaker closest to it, and the system can track changes in the obstacle location and adjust the output accordingly (for example with an audible alert, paragraph 0062). Laine further teaches increasing or decreasing an alert generation based on the location or distance of the object from the vehicle, but does not explicitly teach the transitioning including gradually lowering a first volume of a first speaker and gradually increasing a second volume of a second speaker to simulate the change in direction. Since the audible alert would change speakers depending on its location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased and decreased the audible alert from the speakers as it changed in the same manner as size of the visual alert or frequency of alerts changes (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 15, Dingli and Michau teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the monitoring as outputting the indication by controlling a speaker of the vehicle corresponding to a location of the transducer.
Laine discloses a system for monitoring an obstacle in relation to a vehicle which includes monitoring the obstacle and generating audible alerts to indicate the direction of the obstacle with relation to the speakers in the car (paragraph 0062). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Laine with those of Dingli and Michau in order to provide an audible alert to anyone in the vehicle as to a rough location where an obstacle or other vehicle might be located to avoid a collision or other traffic interference.
Regarding claim 16, the location of the obstacle in Laine is emitted from the speaker closest to it, and the system can track changes in the obstacle location and adjust the output accordingly (for example with an audible alert, paragraph 0062). Laine further teaches increasing or decreasing an alert generation based on the location or distance of the object from the vehicle, but does not explicitly teach the transitioning including gradually lowering a first volume of a first speaker and gradually increasing a second volume of a second speaker to simulate the change in direction. Since the audible alert would change speakers depending on its location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased and decreased the audible alert from the speakers as it changed in the same manner as the visual or frequency of alerts changes (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 19, Dingli and Michau teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the monitoring as outputting the indication by controlling a speaker of the vehicle corresponding to a location of the transducer.
Laine discloses a system for monitoring an obstacle in relation to a vehicle which includes monitoring the obstacle and generating audible alerts to indicate the direction of the obstacle with relation to the speakers in the car (paragraph 0062). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Laine with those of Dingli and Michau in order to provide an audible alert to anyone in the vehicle as to a rough location where an obstacle or other vehicle might be located to avoid a collision or other traffic interference.
Regarding claim 20, the location of the obstacle in Laine is emitted from the speaker closest to it, and the system can track changes in the obstacle location and adjust the output accordingly (for example with an audible alert, paragraph 0062). Laine further teaches increasing or decreasing an alert generation based on the location or distance of the object from the vehicle, but does not explicitly teach the transitioning including gradually lowering a first volume of a first speaker and gradually increasing a second volume of a second speaker to simulate the change in direction. Since the audible alert would change speakers depending on its location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased and decreased the audible alert from the speakers as it changed in the same manner as size of the visual alert or frequency of alerts changes (paragraph 0062).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The newly cited Du reference was published after the previous action was mailed and is being included as being in the general state of the art with regard to automotive detection of external sounds using transducers mounted in a vehicle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855