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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 11/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant elected to prosecute Group I (claims 1-15 and 19-20) with traverse. Applicant’s arguments regarding the restriction and election requirement in the previous Office Action has been reviewed and the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argued that there are similarities between the invention of Group I including claims 1-15 and 19-20; and the invention of Group II including claims 16-18; and there is no burden for additional searches for both invention Groups.
Examiner respectfully disagreed with the applicant’s arguments. Even there are minor similarities between the inventions but the main invention concept between the two inventions are completely different as provided in the Office Action mailed on 09/17/2025. It is also provided in the previous Office Action there are completely different classes and directions of searching for both inventions. There is fixed time resource for searching and prosecuting per each invention and each application.
The Group I (claims 1-15 and 19-20) will be examined. The Group II (claims 16-18) are withdrawn from consideration and will not examine.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/21/2025, 06/02/2025, and 11/17/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4-8, 11-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kentley-Klay (US 10457179 B1 – Cited IDS).
Regarding claim 1: Kentley-Klay teaches a method for directing content within a vehicle, wherein the vehicle contains a first speaker, a second speaker, and a third speaker (Fig. 2: a plurality of seats 206 each seat includes a speaker 220; the speaker 220 associate with each specific seat, for example seat 1, reads on the claimed first speaker, the speaker 220 associate with seat 2, reads on the second speaker, and the speaker 220 associate with seat 3, reads on the third speaker… – also see col. 4: lines 7-18 and col. 5: lines 8-11), the method comprising:
receiving an input indicative of a selection of passengers, wherein the passengers are situated within the vehicle (Fig. 7: steps 702 and 704 and Fig. 2: Sensors 222, Imager 228, and user interface element 230 – also see col. 5: lines 36-56, col. 6: lines 1-18 and lines 26-34; and col. 17: lines 20-46; for example, the imager and sensors detecting user is sitting in seat 1 and the user selecting his preferred audio output setting via user interface element 230);
determining an output configuration based on the selection of the passengers, wherein the output configuration is indicative of one or more of the first speaker, the second speaker, or the third speaker, and wherein the one or more of the first speaker, the second speaker, or the third speaker is fewer than the first speaker, the second speaker, and the third speaker (Fig. 7: step 708 and col. 6: lines 54-67; the output configuration applied only to seat 1 but not to other seats); and
providing the content to the one or more of the first speaker, the second speaker, or the third speaker, wherein the provision of the content is based on the output configuration (col. 6: lines 54-67; the audio output delivers to user of seat 1 via the first speaker 220).
Regarding claim 2: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first speaker is arranged to provide the content to only a first passenger of the vehicle, the second speaker is arranged to provide the content to only a second passenger of the vehicle, and the third speaker is arranged to provide the content to only a third passenger of the vehicle (Fig. 2: a plurality of seats 206 each seat includes a speaker 220; the speaker 220 associate with each specific seat, for example seat 1, reads on the claimed first speaker, the speaker 220 associate with seat 2, reads on the second speaker, and the speaker 220 associate with seat 3, reads on the third speaker; also see Fig. 3: speaker 312; and col. 1: lines 53-59, col. 7: lines 53-60, and col. 19: lines 15-28).
Regarding claim 4: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the content comprises music (col. 15: lines 25-29 and col. 22: lines 46-52).
Regarding claim 5: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying output configurations, wherein each of the output configurations comprises a unique arrangement of output speakers, and each of the output speakers is associated with a passenger of the vehicle (col. 6: lines 63-67, col. 7: lines 1-5, and col. 15: lines 1-25).
Regarding claim 6: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selection of the passengers is based on a user interface element, wherein the user interface element is paired with an identifier of a first passenger of the passengers (Fig. 2: User interface element 230 and user interface element 610; also see col. 6: lines 18-25 and lines 63-67, col. 7: lines 1-5, and col. 15: lines 1-25).
Regarding claim 7: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the identifier is a unique within a group of identifiers associated with the passengers (col. 6: lines 18-25 and col. 15: lines 4-19).
Regarding claim 8: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selection of the passengers comprises an association between a first user interface element and a second user interface element (Col. 6: lines 26-34).
Regarding claim 11: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a quantity of the passengers within the vehicle based on a sensor (Fig. 2: Imager /camera 228 and col. 6: lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 12: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the sensor is configured to receive electromagnetic energy (inherently cameras work by capturing electromagnetic (EM) radiation, primarily visible light, using sensors (pixels) that convert light energy into electrical signals to form an image).
Regarding claim 13: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the sensor comprises one or more weight sensors, and wherein the one or more weight sensors are configured to provide one or more indications of a presence of one or more of the passengers within the vehicle (col. 5: lines 36-49).
Regarding claims 19 and 20: the method discussed in claim 1 and 2 also supports these corresponding system claims. Also see Fig. 5 and col. 9: lines 3-49 regarding the method of claims 1 and 2 performed by processor(s) executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay (US 10457179 B1 – Cited IDS) in view of Sigh et al. (US 11930082 B1).
Regarding claim 3: Kentley-Klay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein audio output may be additionally provided via a peripheral device associated with the seat and external inputs can be provided via user electronic device such as Smartphone (Fig. 2: Other inputs 234 and Fig. 6: User device 620; also see col. 5: lines 24-31, and col. 6: lines 46-53).
Kentley-Klay does not explicitly teach the content comprises a Voice-Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) call.
Sigh teaches a concept of using a user smartphone to incorporate to the car audio system for making a phone call using Voice-Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) (Fig. 1: Mobile device 110; and col. 3: lines 34-49, col. 42: lines 41-50, and col. 49: lines 11-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kentley-Klay in view of Sigh to include audio content comprises a Voice-Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) call. The motivation is to have more integration between user’s electronic device and the vehicle audio system so that the user can have a full range of using user’s electronic device to delivery audio contents to the user via the vehicle audio system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 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 DAVID L TON whose telephone number is (571)270-7839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM (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, Vivian Chin can be reached at (571)272-7848. 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.
/DAVID L TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695