DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application, which was filed November 22, 2023, claiming the benefit of US Provisional Application 63/386,967, filed December 12, 2022. The application contains Claims 1-20.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6, after “sources;”, --and-- should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6, “amplify” should read --amplifying--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 20 is 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. Claim 20 recites “the one or more first sound signals comprise a first sound signal; and amplifying the one or more first sound signals, comprises amplifying each of the one or more first sound signals with a particular amplification order, wherein the first sound signal is amplified with a first amplification order.” It is unclear how to differentiate between any of the “one or more first sound signals”, and to determine which of the “one or more first sound signals” constitutes “the” first sound signal.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 1-5, 8-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al. (US 2018/0374347 A1) in view of Banvait et al. (US 2017/0113684 A1).
Silver teaches, according to claim 1, a system comprising:
a microphone array comprising a plurality of sound sensors, wherein the microphone array is mounted on an autonomous vehicle (Silver et al., at least para. [0018], “the autonomous vehicle may be equipped with a series of microphones or microphone arrays arranged at different locations on the vehicle”) (Banvait et al., at least para. [0021], “…The controller 102 may receive one or more audio streams from one or more microphones 106. For example, one or more microphones or microphone arrays may be mounted to the vehicle and output audio streams received by the controller 102. The microphones 106 may include directional microphones having a sensitivity that varies with angle.”; and Abstract, “A controller for an autonomous vehicle receives audio signals from one or more microphones…”), and configured to:
detect one or more first sound signals from one or more first sound sources (Silver et al., at least para. [0018], “the autonomous vehicle may be equipped with a series of microphones or microphone arrays arranged at different locations on the vehicle”);
a processor associated with the autonomous vehicle, and configured to:
receive the one or more first sound signals (Silver et al., at least para. [0079], “FIG. 8 is a flow diagram 800 that may be performed by one or more processors such as one or more processors 120 of computing devices 110 in order to detect and respond to emergency vehicles. In this example, at block 810, a plurality of microphones, such as microphones 152, arranged at different locations on a vehicle, such as vehicle 100, are used to detect a siren noise corresponding to an emergency vehicle. The output from the plurality of microphones is used to estimate a bearing of the emergency vehicle and a range of the emergency vehicle at block 820…”);
determine that the one or more first sound signals indicate that a vehicle is within a threshold distance from the autonomous vehicle and traveling in a direction toward the autonomous vehicle (Silver et al., at least para. [0054], “In addition, the siren noise and timing may be input into the third model to provide a probability distribution over possible ranges (or distances from the vehicle) of the source of the siren…”; and para. [0057], “In other examples, rather than providing likelihood values for ranges of distances, the third model may output an estimated range as a range of distances that meets a threshold likelihood or confidence value...”); and
instruct the autonomous vehicle to perform a minimal risk maneuver operation in response to determining that the one or more first sound signals indicate that the vehicle is within the threshold distance from the autonomous vehicle and traveling in the direction toward the autonomous vehicle (Silver et al., Figure 8, step 850).
Silver et al. does not expressly teach, where Banvait et al. teaches, detecting one or more second sound signals from one or more second sound sources; the processor associated with the autonomous vehicle (Banvait et al., processor 202, Fig. 2) configured to receive the one or more first sound signals; receive the one or more second sound signals; amplify the one or more first sound signals; and disregard the one or more second sound signals, wherein the one or more second sound signals comprise interference noise signals (Banvait et al., at least para. [0038], “The pre-processing modules 112a-1-112a-4 may process the raw outputs from the microphones 106a-106d and produce processed outputs that are input to the noise cancelation modules 400a-400d or directly to the machine learning module 112a…”; and para. [0039], “The noise cancellation modules 400a-400d may include any noise cancellation filter known in the art or implement any noise cancellation approach known in the art. In particular, the noise cancellation modules 400a-400d may further take as inputs the speed of the vehicle 300, a rotational speed of an engine of the vehicle 300 or other information describing a status of the engine, a speed of a ventilation fan of the vehicle 300, or other information. This information may be used by the noise cancellation modules 400a-400d to remove noise caused by the engine and fan and vehicle wind noise.”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Banvait et al. into the system of Silver et al. for the purpose of differentiating competing sound signatures to properly identify hazards such as emergency vehicles requiring priority passage through vehicles and other road users, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Claims 8 and 15 parallel the limitations of claim 1 and stand rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 2, the minimal risk maneuver operation comprises pulling the autonomous vehicle over to a side of a road (Silver et al., at least para. [0069], “In the example, of FIG. 4, vehicle 100 may simply pull onto the shoulder area 420 and stop or slow down…”).
Regarding claim 3, the minimal risk maneuver operation comprises stopping the autonomous vehicle (Silver et al., at least para. [0069], “In the example, of FIG. 4, vehicle 100 may simply pull onto the shoulder area 420 and stop or slow down…”).
Regarding claim 4, the processor is further configured to facilitate autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle using at least the one or more first sound signals, wherein the autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle is improved in response to disregarding the one or more second sound signals (Banvait et al., at least para. [0037], “…The output of each pre-processing module 112a-1-112a-4 may be further processed by a noise cancellation filter 400a-400d. The output of the noise cancelation modules 400a-400d may then be input to the machine learning module 112b. In particular, the outputs of the noise cancelation modules 400a-400d may be input to a machine learning model 402 that classifies features in the outputs as corresponding to a particular vehicle. The machine learning model 112b may further output a confidence in the classification.”).
Regarding claim 5, the one or more first sound signals comprise a first sound signal; and amplifying the one or more first sound signals, each with a particular amplification order, comprises amplifying the first sound signal with a first amplification order (Silver et al., at least para. [0078], “In some cases, it can be difficult to resolve the bearing of the siren nose when there is another loud sound or interference (e.g. train, jack-hammer or other loud vehicle). When the interference is not being both at the same bearing and having high energy in the same frequencies as the siren, various techniques may be used to focus the detection of the siren noise. One technique may include using beamforming as discussed above. If the siren noise and interference are at different bearings, in a beam pointed at the siren, the siren noise will be much louder than the interference source compared to in data without beamforming…”).
Regarding claim 9, the microphone array is arranged in a two-dimension (2D) plane and in two rows; a first subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are arranged in a first row of the two rows; the first subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are further arranged in a linear array such that each two adjacent sound sensors are disposed with a particular distance from each other; a second subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are arranged in a second row of the two rows; and the second subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are arranged in a linear array such that each two adjacent sound sensors are disposed with a particular distance from each other (Silver et al., at least para. [0039], “…the microphones may be located for example, on the order of ½ wavelength, apart from one another, in order to be able to compute direction from the relative phase of the sound waves that reach each microphone or rather the time difference of arrival. For instance, for emergency vehicles in California, a 6 cm distance may be appropriate. This relatively-small spacing may be achieved within a single set of microphones or microphone array, such as microphones 152a, arranged at the front end of the vehicle 100. In that regard, as noted above, microphones 152 (including 152a-152d) may actually include sets of microphones or microphone arrays…”; and para. [0040], “Although not shown in the FIGURES, in addition or alternatively, microphone arrays may be placed microphones around a roof panel of a vehicle, such as around the circumference of the housing 314 (depicted here as a dome). This may achieve both goals (arrays of closely spaced microphones oriented towards different directions relative to the vehicle) simultaneously, but the microphone arrays would have to be placed in order to limit occlusion of sensors within the dome.”).
Regarding claim 10, the microphone array is arranged in a two-dimension (2D) plane and in two rows; a first subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are arranged in a first row of the two rows; the first subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are further arranged in a non- linear array; a second subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are arranged in a second row of the two rows; and the second subset of sound sensors of the microphone array are further arranged in a non-linear array (Silver et al., at least para. [0039], “…the microphones may be located for example, on the order of ½ wavelength, apart from one another, in order to be able to compute direction from the relative phase of the sound waves that reach each microphone or rather the time difference of arrival. For instance, for emergency vehicles in California, a 6 cm distance may be appropriate. This relatively-small spacing may be achieved within a single set of microphones or microphone array, such as microphones 152a, arranged at the front end of the vehicle 100. In that regard, as noted above, microphones 152 (including 152a-152d) may actually include sets of microphones or microphone arrays…”; and para. [0040], “Although not shown in the FIGURES, in addition or alternatively, microphone arrays may be placed microphones around a roof panel of a vehicle, such as around the circumference of the housing 314 (depicted here as a dome). This may achieve both goals (arrays of closely spaced microphones oriented towards different directions relative to the vehicle) simultaneously, but the microphone arrays would have to be placed in order to limit occlusion of sensors within the dome.”).
Regarding claim 11, the one or more first sound sources comprise the vehicle or a passenger vehicle (Silver et al., at least para. [0062], “In some examples, the first model may be used to identify exactly what part of the sound received at the microphone corresponds to a siren noise. In other words, the first model may be used to identify what small range of frequencies versus time correspond to a siren noise. This can reduce the amount of information fed to the second, third and fourth models which is unrelated to the siren noise (i.e. interference from sounds like wind noise or noise from nearby vehicles).”).
Regarding claim 12, the one or more first sound signals comprise an emergency vehicle siren or a passenger vehicle horn (Silver et al., at least para. [0062], “In some examples, the first model may be used to identify exactly what part of the sound received at the microphone corresponds to a siren noise. In other words, the first model may be used to identify what small range of frequencies versus time correspond to a siren noise. This can reduce the amount of information fed to the second, third and fourth models which is unrelated to the siren noise (i.e. interference from sounds like wind noise or noise from nearby vehicles).”).
Regarding claim 13, the one or more second sound sources comprise rain, wind, or vehicle tires (Silver et al., at least para. [0062], “In some examples, the first model may be used to identify exactly what part of the sound received at the microphone corresponds to a siren noise. In other words, the first model may be used to identify what small range of frequencies versus time correspond to a siren noise. This can reduce the amount of information fed to the second, third and fourth models which is unrelated to the siren noise (i.e. interference from sounds like wind noise or noise from nearby vehicles).”).
Regarding claim 14, the one or more second sound signals comprise a rainfall sound, a wind sound, a vehicle tire sound, or a rumble strip sound (Silver et al., at least para. [0062], “In some examples, the first model may be used to identify exactly what part of the sound received at the microphone corresponds to a siren noise. In other words, the first model may be used to identify what small range of frequencies versus time correspond to a siren noise. This can reduce the amount of information fed to the second, third and fourth models which is unrelated to the siren noise (i.e. interference from sounds like wind noise or noise from nearby vehicles).”).
Regarding claim 16, amplifying the one or more first sound signals comprises amplifying the one or more first sound signals only coming from front of and/or back of the autonomous vehicle (Silver et al., at least para. [0052], “…The direction or range of directions, for instance a 5 degree or more or less range, with the highest probability may be considered to be an estimated bearing for the source of the siren noise. In addition or alternatively, the relative amplitude of the siren noise can be used as an indication of bearing of a source of a siren noise. For example, a siren in front of the vehicle, may sound louder at microphones 152a arranged at the front of the vehicle than at microphones 152b arranged at the rear of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 17, each of the one or more first sound signals originate from a particular sound source from among the one or more first sound sources; each of the one or more first sound signals has a particular frequency band; each of the one or more second sound signals is originated from a particular sound source from among the one or more second sound sources; the one or more second sound signals are different from the one or more first sound signals; the one or more second sound sources are different from the one or more first sound sources; and the instructions further cause the processor to separate the one or more second sound signals from the one or more first sound signals (Banvait et al., at least para. [0038], “The pre-processing modules 112a-1-112a-4 may process the raw outputs from the microphones 106a-106d and produce processed outputs that are input to the noise cancelation modules 400a-400d or directly to the machine learning module 112a. The processed outputs may be a filtered version of the raw outputs, the processed outputs having enhanced audio features relative to the raw outputs. The enhanced audio features may be segments, frequency bands, or other components of the raw outputs that are likely to correspond to a vehicle…”).
Regarding claim 19, a first instance of the microphone array is disposed on a left side of the autonomous vehicle; and a second instance of the microphone array is disposed on a right side of the autonomous vehicle (Silver et al., at least Figure 3C, microphones 152c,152d).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al. in view of Banvait et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marlett et al. (US 2023/0083999 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 2023/0164478 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Silver et al. and Banvait et al. teach the system of claim 1, but do not expressly teach, as Marlett et al. teaches, wherein the microphone array is arranged in a one-dimension (lD) plane; the 1D plane is a plane in space parallel to a road travelled by the autonomous vehicle (Marlett et al., at least Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Marlett et al. into the system of Silver et al. for the purpose of simplifying processing of sound signals due to reduced variables in sound signal collection, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results.
Silver et al. further do not expressly teach, as Zhang et al. teaches, wherein the microphone array is further arranged in a uniform linear array such that each two adjacent sound sensors are disposed with a particular distance from each other (Zhang et al., at least para. [0036], “…In some embodiments, an arrangement of the first microphone array 130 may include a linear array (e.g., a straight line, a curve), a planar array (e.g., a regular and/or irregular shape such as a cross, a circle…”; and para. [0134], “In some embodiments, the microphones in the microphone array may be uniformly distributed. The uniform distribution herein may refer to a same distance between any adjacent two microphones in the microphone array…”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Zhang et al. into the system of Silver et al. for the purpose of differentiating competing sound signatures to properly identify hazards such as emergency vehicles requiring priority passage through vehicles and other road users, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Regarding claim 7, Silver et al. and Banvait et al. teach the system of claim 1, but do not expressly teach, as Marlett et al. teaches, wherein the microphone array is arranged in a one-dimension (lD) plane; the 1D plane is a plane in space parallel to a road travelled by the autonomous vehicle (Marlett et al., at least Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Marlett et al. into the system of Silver et al. for the purpose of simplifying processing of sound signals due to reduced variables in sound signal collection, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results.
Silver et al. further do not expressly teach, as Zhang et al. teaches, the microphone array is further arranged in a non-linear array such that a first subset of sound sensors are disposed with a first distance from each other and a second subset of sound sensors are disposed with a second distance from each other; and the first distance is different from the second distance (Zhang et al., at least para. [0036], “…In some embodiments, an arrangement of the first microphone array 130 may include a linear array (e.g., a straight line, a curve), a planar array (e.g., a regular and/or irregular shape such as a cross, a circle…”; and para. [0134], “In some embodiments, the microphones in the microphone array may be uniformly distributed. The uniform distribution herein may refer to a same distance between any adjacent two microphones in the microphone array…”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Zhang et al. into the system of Silver et al. for the purpose of differentiating competing sound signatures to properly identify hazards such as emergency vehicles requiring priority passage through vehicles and other road users, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al. in view of Banvait et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 20190258894 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Silver et al. and Banvait et al. teach the system of claim 1, but do not expressly teach, as Zeng et al. teaches, causing the processor to: determine, based at least in part the one or more first sound signals and the one or more second sound signals, that the autonomous vehicle is traveling on rumble strips; and instruct the autonomous vehicle to slow down (Zeng et al., at least para. [0043], “If the rumble strip 210 is determined, at block 420, not to relate to a lane divider, then it is assumed to be a transverse rumble strip 210c. In this case, at block 430, performing correction or providing a message refers to the controller 140, directly or through the ECU 150, instructing vehicle systems 170 to slow or stop the vehicle 100 or providing an alert to the driver through one of the other systems 160 (e.g., infotainment screen), for example. If the rumble strip 210 is determined, at block 420, to relate to a lane divider, then a set of processes is implemented to take corrective action.”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Zeng et al. into the system of Silver et al. for the purpose of differentiating particular sound signatures to properly identify hazards and provide a properly measured response, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD J. WALLACE whose telephone number is
(313) 446-4915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665