DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino, JP 05260600 (hereinafter Ogino) in view of Tan et al, CN 109922411 (hereinafter Tan).
Regarding claim 1, Ogino discloses a method implemented by a processor, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining, using an in-vehicle presence detection means (see presence detection means), first position information (see Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) of a plurality of areas (from Figure 2, see 11, 12, 13 and 14) in which a plurality of users (see person) is located; and
controlling, based on the first position information and second position information of a plurality of sound-making apparatuses, the sound-making apparatuses to work, wherein the controlling the sound-making apparatuses comprises:
determining a sound field optimization center point (from Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d see F) based on the first position information, wherein first distances between the sound field optimization center point and center point of all of the areas are equal; and
controlling (see the sound output is controlled according to the seating location to create the optimum sound field), based on a second distance between the sound field optimization center point and each of the sound-making apparatuses, each of the sound-making apparatuses to work.
Further regarding claim 1, Ogino does not teach the detection means is a camera. All the same, Tan discloses the detection means is a camera (see camera). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogino wherein the detection means is a camera as taught by Tan. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different types of detection means as suggested by Tan.
Regarding claim 4, Ogino discloses the areas are in a vehicle cockpit and comprise a front-row area and a rear-row area, or comprise a driver area and a front passenger area (see Figure 2a).
Regarding claim 8, Ogino discloses controlling the sound-making apparatuses comprises adjusting a play intensity (see audio output levels) of each of the sound-making apparatuses.
Regarding claim 10, Ogino as modified by Tan discloses wherein obtaining the first position information comprises:
obtaining sensing information comprising one or more of image information (from Tan, see image), pressure information, or sound information; and
determining the first position information based on the sensing information.
Regarding claim 11, Ogino discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and to execute the instructions to cause the electronic apparatus to:
obtain, using an in-vehicle presence detection means (see presence detection means), first position information (see Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) of a plurality of areas (from Figure 2, see 11, 12, 13 and 14) in which a plurality of users (see person) is located;
determine a sound field optimization center point (from Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d see F) based on the first position information, wherein first distances between the sound field optimization center point and center points of all of the areas are equal; and
control (see the sound output is controlled according to the seating location to create the optimum sound field), based on a second distance between the sound field optimization center point and each of sound-making apparatuses, each of the sound-making apparatuses to work.
Further regarding claim 11, Ogino does not teach the detection means is a camera. All the same, Tan discloses the detection means is a camera (see camera). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogino wherein the detection means is a camera as taught by Tan. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different types of detection means as suggested by Tan.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, Ogino discloses a system comprising:
a sensor comprising an in-vehicle presence detection means (see presence detection means); and
an electronic apparatus coupled to the sensor and comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and to execute the instructions to cause the electronic apparatus to:
obtain, using the in-vehicle presence detection means, first position information (see Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) of a plurality of areas (from Figure 2, see 11, 12, 13 and 14) in which a plurality of users (see person) is located;
determine a sound field optimization center point (from Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d see F) based on the first position information, wherein first distances between the sound field optimization center point and center points of all of the areas are equal; and
control (see the sound output is controlled according to the seating location to create the optimum sound field), based on a second distance between the sound field optimization center point and each of sound-making apparatuses, each of the sound-making apparatuses to work.
Further regarding claim 18, Ogino does not teach the detection means is a camera. All the same, Tan discloses the detection means is a camera (see camera). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogino wherein the detection means is a camera as taught by Tan. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different types of detection means as suggested by Tan.
Regarding claim 19, Ogino discloses a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor, cause an electronic apparatus to:
obtain, using an in-vehicle presence detection means (see presence detection means), first position information (see Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) of a plurality of areas (from Figure 2, see 11, 12, 13 and 14) in which a plurality of users (see person) is located;
determine a sound field optimization center point (from Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d see F) based on the first position information, wherein first distances between the sound field optimization center point and center points of all of the areas are equal; and
control (see the sound output is controlled according to the seating location to create the optimum sound field), based on a second distance between the sound field optimization center point and each of sound-making apparatuses, each of the sound-making apparatuses to work.
Further regarding claim 19, Ogino does not teach the detection means is a camera. All the same, Tan discloses the detection means is a camera (see camera). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogino wherein the detection means is a camera as taught by Tan. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different types of detection means as suggested by Tan.
Regarding claim 20, Ogino discloses a vehicle comprising:
a plurality of sound-making apparatuses; and
an electronic apparatus, comprising
a memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and to execute the instructions to cause the electronic apparatus to:
obtain, using an in-vehicle presence detection means (see presence detection means), first position information (see Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) of a plurality of areas (from Figure 2, see 11, 12, 13 and 14) in which a plurality of users (see person) is located;
determine a sound field optimization center point (from Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d see F) based on the first position information, wherein first distances between the sound field optimization center point and center points of all of the areas are equal; and
control (see the sound output is controlled according to the seating location to create the optimum sound field), based on a second distance between the sound field optimization center point and each of sound-making apparatuses, each of the sound-making apparatuses to work.
Further regarding claim 20, Ogino does not teach the detection means is a camera. All the same, Tan discloses the detection means is a camera (see camera). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogino wherein the detection means is a camera as taught by Tan. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different types of detection means as suggested by Tan.
3. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino combined with Tan in further view of Prakah-Asante, U.S. Patent No. 10,061,557 (hereinafter Prakah-Asante).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ogino and Tan does not clearly teach notifying the first position information to a user. All the same, Prakah-Asante discloses this feature (from Figure 8, see Changed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Ogino and Tan with the notifying feature of Prakah-Asante. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing recommendations to the operator as suggested by Prakah-Asante.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons a claim 7.
4. Claims 3, 9, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Tan in further view of Winton et al, U.S. Patent No. 10,324,683 (hereinafter Winton).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ogino and Tan does not clearly teach notifying third position information of the sound field optimization center point to a user. All the same, Winton discloses this feature (from Figure 3, see 304). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Ogino and Tan with the notifying feature of Winton. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing a user interface for controlling the output of sound as suggested by Winton.
Regarding claim 9, although Ogino discloses the sound-making apparatuses comprise a first sound-making apparatus, wherein adjusting the play intensity comprises controlling a first play intensity of the first sound-making apparatus, the combination of Ogino and Tan does not teach the method further comprises: obtaining an instruction of a user to adjust the first play intensity to a second play intensity and adjusting, in response to the instruction, the first play intensity to the second play intensity. All the same, Winton discloses this feature (from Figure 3, see 310). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Ogino and Tan with the instruction of Winton. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by increasing user control over the listening environment as suggested by Winton.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
5. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Tan in further view of Hiraiwa, U.S. Patent No. 10,922,048 (hereinafter Hiraiwa).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ogino and Tan does not teach determining a status of a user in an area of the plurality of areas based on image information from the in-vehicle camera and adjusting a play intensity of a speaker near the area based on the first position information and the status of the user. All the same, Hiraiwa discloses determining a status (from Figure 7, see S106) of a user in an area of the plurality of areas based on image information from the in-vehicle camera and adjusting a play intensity of a speaker near the area based on the first position information and the status of the user (from Figure 7, see S108). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Ogino and Tan with determining a status of a user in an area of the plurality of areas based on image information from the in-vehicle camera and adjusting a play intensity of a speaker near the area based on the first position information and the status of the user as taught by Hiraiwa. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by ensuring the comfort of the vehicle occupants as suggested by Hiraiwa.
Regarding claim 22, the Ogino and Tan as modified by Hiraiwa discloses controlling the play intensity of the speaker near the area to be 0 when the user is resting (from Figure 7, see S108).
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 21.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
7. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
November 7, 2025
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692