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 is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 10/20/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
2. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“Prior to determining the sound signal, positioning the windbreak in an initial position relative to a vehicle speed or a panel position or both” (Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20).
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.
3. Claims 9-10, 16, and 19-20 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.
4. Regarding Claim 9, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood what is meant by “an initial position relative to a vehicle speed or a panel position or both.” More specifically, it is unclear how a position can be an initial position if it depends on a changing variable (e.g., vehicle speed or panel position). Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is being interpreted as positioning the windbreak in a position relative to a vehicle speed or panel position.
The specification does not provide any further clarification because there is no mention of positioning the windbreak in an initial position relative to vehicle speed of panel position. Instead, the windbreak is positioned in a desired position relative to the vehicle speed or panel position (see [0025] of present specification).
Claims 10 and 19-20 has the same limitation as Claim 9 except for their dependencies and are rejected for the same reasoning.
5. Regarding Claim 16, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood what is meant by “to determine store a previous sound level.” More specifically, it is unclear if the controller is programmed to determine and/or store a previous level. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is being interpreted the controller being programmed to determine or store a previous sound level.
6. Regarding Claim 20, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood when the claim sentence ends. As currently claimed, there are two periods in Claim 20. The claim is being interpreted to ignore the first period so the end of the claim reads as “comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level from a windbreak position table.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toge (JP 2005096646 A).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Toge teaches a method for controlling a windbreak for a vehicle comprising (Toge: [0001]):
Determining a sound signal corresponding to a sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0016] and [0060]);
And minimizing the sound level within the vehicle by moving the windbreak (Toge: [0061]).
11. Regarding Claim 2, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches determining the sound signal comprises determining the sound signal from a microphone (Toge: [0027]).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches moving the windbreak comprises changing a motor position of a motor coupled to the windbreak (Toge: [0028]).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches continually performing the steps of determining the sound signal and moving the windbreak (Toge: [0040] and [0041]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches determining a vehicle speed and performing the step of minimizing when the vehicle speed is below a vehicle speed threshold (Toge: [0017], [0040], and [0041]).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches moving the windbreak comprises moving the windbreak in a first direction and a second direction to minimize the sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0061]).
16. Regarding Claim 11, Toge teaches a system for controlling a windbreak for a vehicle comprising (Toge: [0001]):
A sound sensor (Toge: [0016]);
A controller programmed to determine a sound signal corresponding to a sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0016] and [0060]);
And minimize the sound level within the vehicle by moving the windbreak (Toge: [0061]).
17. Regarding Claim 12, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, teaches to determine the sound signal by determining the sound signal from a microphone (Toge: [0027]).
18. Regarding Claim 14, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, teaches to move the windbreak by changing a motor position of a motor coupled to the windbreak (Toge: [0028]).
Regarding Claim 15, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, teaches to continually determine the sound signal and move the windbreak (Toge: [0040] and [0041]).
19. Regarding Claim 17, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, teaches to determine a vehicle speed and minimize when the vehicle speed is below a vehicle speed threshold (Toge: [0017], [0040], and [0041]).
20. Regarding Claim 18, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, teaches to move the windbreak by moving the windbreak in a first direction and a second direction to minimize the sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0061]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
24. Claims 6, 9-10, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toge (JP 2005096646 A).
25. Regarding Claim 6, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Toge does not explicitly teach storing a previous sound level in a memory and wherein minimizing the sound level comprises comparing the sound level to a sound threshold comprising the previous sound level. However, Toge teaches in [0060] an electronic control circuit 20 that controls the rise and fall of the windbreak based on threshold values. Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the previous sound levels are interpreted as threshold values that have been predetermined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to store previous sound level in a memory as similarly shown in Toge's [0060] use of the electronic control circuit to determine whether the windbreak needs to be controlled based on the comparison of a sound level to a predetermined sound threshold because it provides the benefit of controlling the wind slob and wind noise can be minimized to improve the comfort of the passengers in the vehicle. Toge's sound thresholds must be stored in a memory in communication with the electronic control circuit in order to make the comparison to execute control. The wind slob is affected by the speed of the vehicle that can cause undesirable vibrations so controlling the windbreak relative to the speed minimizes these vibrations as explicitly explained in [0017] and [0061].
26. Regarding Claim 9, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Toge does not explicitly teach prior to determining the sound signal, positioning the windbreak in an initial position relative to a vehicle speed or a panel position or both, and wherein minimizing the sound level comprises comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level. However, Toge teaches in [0041] to gradually raise the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becomes less that a threshold while the vehicle speed is less than a threshold. The windbreak is positioned (S7) prior the determining the next sound signal (S8). The windbreak position is relative to the vehicle speed because the windbreak is gradually raised at a vehicle speed below 20 km/hr and is set to MAX position when a vehicle speed is between 20 km/hr and 90 km/hr.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the windbreak relative to a vehicle speed prior to determining the sound signal to minimize the sound level by comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level as similarly shown in Toge's [0041] use of gradually raising the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becoming less that a threshold because it provides the benefit of controlling the wind slob and wind noise can be minimized to improve the comfort of the passengers in the vehicle. The wind slob is affected by the speed of the vehicle that can cause undesirable vibrations so controlling the windbreak relative to the speed minimizes these vibrations as explicitly explained in [0017] and [0061].
27. Regarding Claim 10, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Toge does not explicitly teach prior to determining the sound signal, positioning the windbreak in an initial position relative to a vehicle speed or a panel position or both, and wherein minimizing the sound level comprises comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level from a windbreak position table. However, Toge teaches in [0041] to gradually raise the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becomes less that a threshold while the vehicle speed is less than a threshold. The windbreak is positioned (S7) prior the determining the next sound signal (S8). The windbreak position is relative to the vehicle speed because the windbreak is gradually raised at a vehicle speed below 20 km/hr and is set to MAX position when a vehicle speed is between 20 km/hr and 90 km/hr. Additionally, Toge teaches in [0059] a graph relative position of the windbreak to vehicle speed and vibrations (dBs), which is equivalent to the windbreak position table.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the windbreak relative to a vehicle speed prior to determining the sound signal to minimize the sound level by comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level as similarly shown in Toge's [0041] use of gradually raising the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becoming less that a threshold because it provides the benefit of controlling the wind slob and wind noise can be minimized to improve the comfort of the passengers in the vehicle. The wind slob is affected by the speed of the vehicle that can cause undesirable vibrations so controlling the windbreak relative to the speed minimizes these vibrations as explicitly explained in [0017] and [0061].
28. Regarding Claim 16, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Toge does not explicitly teach to determine store a previous sound level in a memory and minimize the sound level by comparing the sound level to the previous sound level. However, Toge teaches in [0060] an electronic control circuit 20 that controls the rise and fall of the windbreak based on threshold values. Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the previous sound levels are interpreted as threshold values that have been predetermined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to store previous sound level in a memory as similarly shown in Toge's [0060] use of the electronic control circuit to determine whether the windbreak needs to be controlled based on the comparison of a sound level to a predetermined sound threshold because it provides the benefit of controlling the wind slob and wind noise can be minimized to improve the comfort of the passengers in the vehicle. Toge's sound thresholds must be stored in a memory in communication with the electronic control circuit in order to make the comparison to execute control. The wind slob is affected by the speed of the vehicle that can cause undesirable vibrations so controlling the windbreak relative to the speed minimizes these vibrations as explicitly explained in [0017] and [0061].
29. Regarding Claim 19, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Toge does not explicitly teach position the windbreak in an initial position relative to a vehicle speed or a panel position or both, and wherein minimizing the sound level comprises comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level. However, Toge teaches in [0041] to gradually raise the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becomes less that a threshold while the vehicle speed is less than a threshold. The windbreak position is relative to the vehicle speed because the windbreak is gradually raised at a vehicle speed below 20 km/hr and is set to MAX position when a vehicle speed is between 20 km/hr and 90 km/hr.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the windbreak relative to a vehicle speed prior to determining the sound signal to minimize the sound level by comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level as similarly shown in Toge's [0041] use of gradually raising the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becoming less that a threshold because it provides the benefit of controlling the wind slob and wind noise can be minimized to improve the comfort of the passengers in the vehicle. The wind slob is affected by the speed of the vehicle that can cause undesirable vibrations so controlling the windbreak relative to the speed minimizes these vibrations as explicitly explained in [0017] and [0061].
30. Regarding Claim 20, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Toge does not explicitly teach position the windbreak in an initial position relative to a vehicle speed or a panel position or both, and wherein minimizing the sound level comprises comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level from a windbreak position table. However, Toge teaches in [0041] to gradually raise the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becomes less that a threshold while the vehicle speed is less than a threshold. The windbreak position is relative to the vehicle speed because the windbreak is gradually raised at a vehicle speed below 20 km/hr and is set to MAX position when a vehicle speed is between 20 km/hr and 90 km/hr. Additionally, Toge teaches in [0059] a graph relative position of the windbreak to vehicle speed and vibrations (dBs), which is equivalent to the windbreak position table.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the windbreak relative to a vehicle speed prior to determining the sound signal to minimize the sound level by comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level as similarly shown in Toge's [0041] use of gradually raising the windbreak until the vibration sensor output (dB) becoming less that a threshold because it provides the benefit of controlling the wind slob and wind noise can be minimized to improve the comfort of the passengers in the vehicle. The wind slob is affected by the speed of the vehicle that can cause undesirable vibrations so controlling the windbreak relative to the speed minimizes these vibrations as explicitly explained in [0017] and [0061].
31. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toge (JP 2005096646 A) in view of Wheeler (US 20190112861 A1).
32. Regarding Claim 3, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Toge discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of microphones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use more than one microphone to determine a sound signal, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, Wheeler teaches determining the sound signal comprises determining a sound signal from a plurality of microphones (Wheeler: [0021] and [0051]).
Toge and Wheeler are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of window panel vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toge to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to improve Toge by using multiple microphones for determining a sound signal because it provides the benefit of detecting the sound signal from a plurality of different locations within the vehicle as explained in [0021] of Wheeler.
33. Regarding Claim 13, Toge remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Toge discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of microphones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use more than one microphone to determine a sound signal, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, Wheeler teaches determining the sound signal comprises determining a sound signal from a plurality of microphones (Wheeler: [0021] and [0051]).
Toge and Wheeler are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of window panel vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toge to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to improve Toge by using multiple microphones for determining a sound signal because it provides the benefit of detecting the sound signal from a plurality of different locations within the vehicle as explained in [0021] of Wheeler.
Conclusion
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663