DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is cancelled. Claims 2-11, 14-17, 28, 29, and 31-35 are amended. Claims 2-36 are pending in the application.
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 (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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to paragraph [00406] are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the objections directed to the drawings in the previous Office Action.
Amendments to claims 9-11 and 14 are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the objections directed to the claims in the previous Office Action.
Amendments to claims 7 and 8 are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) directed to claims 7 and 8 in the previous Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“controller” in claims 2, 4-23, 25-27, 35, 36; and
“a sound control system” in claim 35.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 15-36 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11-13, 16, 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,935,513 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize claims 2-6, 9-13, and 15-36 of the instant application in view of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11-13, 16, 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,935,513 B2.
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.
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 2-8, 10-17, 21-26, and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkassky et al. (US 2012/0288110 A1; from IDS filed on 03/03/2024; hereinafter Cherkassky) in view of Bowden et al. (US 2012/0257763 A1; from IDS filed on 03/03/2024; hereinafter Bowden).
With respect to claim 2, Cherkassky teaches: An apparatus (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 52: “an ANC system 100”; and Fig. 1) comprising:
an input (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 56: “one or more acoustic sensors, e.g., microphones, accelerometers, tachometers and the like… and/or from one or more virtual sensors”) to receive input information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 56: “receive noise inputs 104 from one or more acoustic sensors… and/or from one or more virtual sensors”), the input information comprising:
noise information (see e.g. Cherkassky, Fig. 1: “Noise Inputs 104”) representing acoustic noise at a plurality of noise sensing locations (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 55: “receive a plurality of noise inputs 104 representing acoustic noise at a plurality of predefined noise sensing locations 105”);
residual-noise information (see e.g. Cherkassky, Fig. 1: “Residual Noise 106”) representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of residual-noise sensing locations within a sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 57: “receive a plurality of residual-noise inputs 106 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations 107, which are located within noise-control zone 110”); and
Active Acoustic Control (AAC) configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “one or more predefined noise pattern attributes, such that, for example, the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”) representing one or more parameters (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “noise pattern attributes”) affecting a real-time configuration of AAC (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes, such that, for example, the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”) in the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “within the noise control zone”; and Fig. 2: “110”),
a controller (see e.g. Cherkassky, Fig. 1: “ANC Controller 102”) comprising circuitry (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 30: “circuits”), the controller configured to determine a sound control pattern to control sound within the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 53: “a controller 102 to control noise within a predefined noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern”), the controller configured to determine the sound control pattern based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern to be reduced according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”), the noise information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 60: “controller 102 may be configured to determine a noise control signal 109, based on noise inputs 104”), and the residual-noise information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 60: “controller 102 may be configured to determine a noise control signal 109, based on… residual-noise inputs 106”), wherein the controller is configured to, based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”), mute the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”; and paragraph 109: “reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110”), adapt one or more AAC parameters (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”) for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern to be reduced according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 137: “estimator 310 may be able to adapt one or more parameters of the estimation function based on a plurality of residual-noise inputs 316 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations”), or halt an adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 87: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to… not reducing one or more second noise patterns within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 88: “not reducing one or more second noise patterns, e.g., including an audio noise pattern of an audio device located within the vehicle, a horn noise pattern, a siren noise pattern, a hazard noise pattern of a hazard, an alarm noise pattern of an alarm signal, a noise pattern of an informational signal, and the like”); and
an output (see e.g. Cherkassky, Fig. 1: “Acoustical Source 108”) to output the sound control pattern to a plurality of acoustic transducers (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 59: “at least one acoustic transducer 108, e.g., a speaker. Controller 102 may control acoustic transducer 108 to generate an acoustic noise control pattern configured to control the noise within noise control zone 110”; and paragraphs 63-64).
Cherkassky does not but Bowden teaches:
wherein the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Bowden, paragraph 22: “additional input”) is different from the noise information and the residual-noise information (see e.g. Bowden, paragraph 22: “sound modification controller 30 of the exemplary embodiment is also in communication with an engine control unit 44 (ECU) through a controller area network 46 (CAN) bus to provide an additional input to the algorithm”; and paragraph 27: “ANR controller 26 could use the engine ECU 44, the vehicle speed sensor 36, the vehicle acceleration sensor 38 or the throttle position sensor 40 as additional inputs for generating the opposing sound wave signal”), the AAC configuration information comprises information from a system bus (see e.g. Bowden, Fig. 1: “46”) of a vehicle (see e.g. Bowden, Fig. 1: “22”) comprising the sound control zone (see e.g. Bowden, paragraph 22: “sound modification controller 30 of the exemplary embodiment is also in communication with an engine control unit 44 (ECU) through a controller area network 46 (CAN) bus to provide an additional input to the algorithm”);
Cherkassky and Bowden are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: acoustic control within a sound control zone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cherkassky with the teachings of Bowden. The motivation/suggestion would be to increase the accuracy of the noise control process; thus improving overall the efficiency of the system.
With respect to claim 3, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to identify at least one faulty acoustic sensor (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 138: “controller 300 may evaluate the noise error at the particular residual-noise sensor location based on inputs 308 and the predicted noise signal 312”), and to configure the sound control pattern based on identification of the faulty acoustic sensor (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 148: “prediction unit 500 may optimize the prediction filter coefficients wkm[i] to achieve maximal destructive interference at the residual-error sensing locations 107 (FIG. 2)”; and Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 4, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, to adjust a level of the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “controller 300 may utilize the disjoint acoustic patterns 308 to reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110 (FIG. 2) in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”).
With respect to claim 5, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to identify at least one predefined situation (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”) based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”; and paragraph 44), and, based on identification of the at least one predefined situation (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”; and paragraph 44), to mute the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “controller 300 may utilize the disjoint acoustic patterns 308 to… eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110 (FIG. 2) in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”), to adapt the one or more AAC parameters (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”) for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern to be reduced according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 137: “estimator 310 may be able to adapt one or more parameters of the estimation function based on a plurality of residual-noise inputs 316 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations”), or to halt the adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 87: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to… not reducing one or more second noise patterns within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 88: “not reducing one or more second noise patterns, e.g., including an audio noise pattern of an audio device located within the vehicle, a horn noise pattern, a siren noise pattern, a hazard noise pattern of a hazard, an alarm noise pattern of an alarm signal, a noise pattern of an informational signal, and the like”)
With respect to claim 6, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to detect a change in the real-time configuration of AAC in the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”) based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”; and paragraph 44), and, based on detection of change in the real-time configuration of AAC in the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”; and paragraph 44), to mute the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “controller 300 may utilize the disjoint acoustic patterns 308 to… eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110 (FIG. 2) in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”), to adapt the one or more AAC parameters (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”) for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern to be reduced according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 137: “estimator 310 may be able to adapt one or more parameters of the estimation function based on a plurality of residual-noise inputs 316 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations”), or to halt the adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 87: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to… not reducing one or more second noise patterns within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 88: “not reducing one or more second noise patterns, e.g., including an audio noise pattern of an audio device located within the vehicle, a horn noise pattern, a siren noise pattern, a hazard noise pattern of a hazard, an alarm noise pattern of an alarm signal, a noise pattern of an informational signal, and the like”)
With respect to claim 7, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to identify a faulty acoustic sensor (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 138: “"noise error") sensed by at least one virtual error sensor”) based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 138: “controller 300 may evaluate the noise error at the particular residual-noise sensor location based on inputs 308 and the predicted noise signal 312”), and to configure the sound control pattern based on identification of the faulty acoustic sensor (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 148: “prediction unit 500 may optimize the prediction filter coefficients wkm[i] to achieve maximal destructive interference at the residual-error sensing locations 107 (FIG. 2)”; and Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to identify a faulty acoustic sensor (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 138: “"noise error") sensed by at least one virtual error sensor”) based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 138: “controller 300 may evaluate the noise error at the particular residual-noise sensor location based on inputs 308 and the predicted noise signal 312”), and, based on identification of the faulty acoustic sensor, to mute the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”; and paragraph 109: “reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110”), to adapt the one or more AAC parameters (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”) for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern to be reduced according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 137: “estimator 310 may be able to adapt one or more parameters of the estimation function based on a plurality of residual-noise inputs 316 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations”), or to halt the adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 87: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to… not reducing one or more second noise patterns within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 88: “not reducing one or more second noise patterns, e.g., including an audio noise pattern of an audio device located within the vehicle, a horn noise pattern, a siren noise pattern, a hazard noise pattern of a hazard, an alarm noise pattern of an alarm signal, a noise pattern of an informational signal, and the like”).
With respect to claim 10, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, to set a plurality of noise inputs to zero, the plurality of noise inputs representing the acoustic noise at the plurality of noise sensing locations (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “controller 300 may utilize the disjoint acoustic patterns 308 to… eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110 (FIG. 2) in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”).
With respect to claim 11, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, to set a plurality of residual noise inputs to zero, the plurality of residual noise inputs representing the acoustic residual-noise at the plurality of residual-noise sensing locations (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “controller 300 may utilize the disjoint acoustic patterns 308 to… eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110 (FIG. 2) in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”).
With respect to claim 12, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, to set the sound control pattern to zero (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 109: “controller 300 may utilize the disjoint acoustic patterns 308 to… eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110 (FIG. 2) in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”).
With respect to claim 13, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, whether or not to call an AAC function for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes, such that, for example, the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”).
With respect to claim 14, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, to set one or more Speaker Transfer Functions (STF) to zero, the one or more STF for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 139: “controller 300 may utilize a speaker transfer function to produce an estimation of a noise control pattern generated by transducer 314, e.g., by applying the speaker transfer function to predicted noise signal 312”; and paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes).
With respect to claim 15, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, to halt the adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”).
With respect to claim 16, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, to slow down the adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”).
With respect to claim 17, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to select, based on the AAC configuration information, whether or not to call an AAC adaptation function to adapt the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes, such that, for example, the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”).
With respect to claim 21, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to determine an AAC parameter setting based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes, such that, for example, the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”), and to determine the sound control pattern according to the AAC parameter setting (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes”).
With respect to claim 22, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to adapt the AAC parameter setting based on a change in the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes, such that, for example, the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”).
With respect to claim 23, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to determine a path transfer function setting of one or more path transfer functions based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 150: “stflm[j] denotes a path transfer function having J coefficients from the m-th speaker of the array 502 at a l-th location”), and to determine the sound control pattern based on the path transfer function setting (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 150: “a residual noise pattern, denoted el[n], at an l-th location may be expressed, for example, as follows… wherein stflm[j] denotes a path transfer function having J coefficients from the m-th speaker of the array 502 at a l-th location”).
With respect to claim 24, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the path transfer function setting comprises a setting of at least one of a first path transfer function between an acoustic transducer and a noise sensing location, a second path transfer function between the acoustic transducer and a residual-noise sensing location, or a third path transfer function between the acoustic transducer and a monitoring location (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 150: “a path transfer function having J coefficients from the m-th speaker of the array 502 at a l-th location”), wherein the residual-noise information is based on a monitoring input sensed at the monitoring location (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 150: “a residual noise pattern, denoted el[n], at an l-th location may be expressed, for example, as follows… wherein stflm[j] denotes a path transfer function having J coefficients from the m-th speaker of the array 502 at a l-th location”).
With respect to claim 25, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to determine a sound control profile (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 156: “predefined criterion”) based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 156: “Selection unit 609 may selectively provide to prediction unit 610 only signals with special interest, e.g., based on a predefined criterion. For example, a possible criterion could be specific spectral or temporal behavior”), and to determine the sound control pattern based on the sound control profile (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 156: “controller 300 may be configured to select one or more of the noise patterns to be controlled by controller 300… selectively provide to prediction unit 610 only signals with special interest, e.g., based on a predefined criterion”).
With respect to claim 26, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2 comprising a memory to store a plurality of sound control profiles corresponding to a plurality of sound control configurations, respectively (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 156: “a predefined criterion. For example, a possible criterion could be specific spectral or temporal behavior”), wherein the controller is configured to select from the plurality of sound control profiles a selected sound control profile based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 156: “controller 300 may be configured to select one or more of the noise patterns to be controlled by controller 300… Selection unit 609 may selectively provide to prediction unit 610 only signals with special interest, e.g., based on a predefined criterion. For example, a possible criterion could be specific spectral or temporal behavior. For example, if the signal to be controlled does not overlap with the signal that is not to be controlled in a frequency domain, then selector 609 may separate the signals, e.g., by using a filter bank approach utilizing a plurality of filters to filter the frequencies of the signal to be controlled”), and to determine the sound control pattern based on the selected sound control profile (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 156: “controller 300 may be configured to select one or more of the noise patterns to be controlled by controller 300… Selection unit 609 may selectively provide to prediction unit 610 only signals with special interest, e.g., based on a predefined criterion”).
With respect to claim 28, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the AAC configuration information comprises at least one of braking system information, road detection information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 88: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to selectively reduce one or more first noise patterns, e.g., including a road noise pattern”), steering information, tire information, seat position information, or opening-state information, wherein the braking system information comprises information corresponding to a braking system of the vehicle, the road detection information comprises information from a road detection system of the vehicle (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 88: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to selectively reduce one or more first noise patterns, e.g., including a road noise pattern”; and paragraph 154: “Extractor 306 may be configured to disaggregate the different noise patterns and to provide to estimator 310 input 308 including only one or more of the unwanted noise patterns, e.g., the road noise pattern”), the steering information comprises information corresponding to a steering system of the vehicle, the tire information comprises information corresponding to one or more tires of the vehicle, the seat position information comprises information corresponding to one or more seats of the vehicle, the opening-state information comprises information corresponding to a state of an opening of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 29, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the AAC configuration information comprises climate information corresponding to a climate in the vehicle (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 88: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to selectively reduce one or more first noise patterns, e.g., including… a wind noise pattern”; paragraph 103: “controller 102 may be configured to select one or more reference acoustic patterns based on one or more attributes of… the wind noise pattern”; and paragraph 153: “a plurality of acoustic pattern "types" may be present within the vehicle, e.g. …wind noise”).
With respect to claim 30, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the AAC configuration information comprises user position information corresponding to a position of at least one of a head or an ear of a user in the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 157: “a headrest ANC system 700 configured to maintain a Quiet Bubble 702 around a head of a user of headrest 700”; paragraphs 38, 88; and Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 31, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the AAC configuration information comprises vehicular system configuration information corresponding to a configuration of a mode of operation of one or more vehicular systems of the vehicle (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 88: “noise-control zone 110 may be located within an interior of a vehicle, and controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to selectively reduce one or more first noise patterns, e.g., including a road noise pattern, a wind noise pattern, and/or an engine noise pattern, while not reducing one or more second noise patterns, e.g., including an audio noise pattern of an audio device located within the vehicle, a horn noise pattern, a siren noise pattern, a hazard noise pattern of a hazard, an alarm noise pattern of an alarm signal, a noise pattern of an informational signal, and the like”).
With respect to claim 32, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the AAC configuration information comprises vehicular sensor information from one or more vehicular sensors of the vehicle (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 103: “ANC system 100 is deployed within the interior of a vehicle… controller 102 may be configured to select one or more reference acoustic patterns based on one or more attributes of the road noise pattern, the wind noise pattern, and/or the engine noise pattern”; and paragraph 88).
With respect to claims 33 and 34: Claims 33 and 34 are directed to a product comprising instructions to cause a sound control system to implement active functions corresponding to the functions implemented by the apparatus disclosed in claims 2 and 6, respectively; please see the rejection directed to claims 2 and 6 above which also covers the limitations recited in claim 33 and 34. Note that, Cherkassky also discloses a product comprising instructions to cause a sound control system to implement functions (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 165) corresponding to the functions of the apparatus disclosed in claims 2 and 4.
With respect to claim 35, Cherkassky teaches: A vehicle (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 103: “ANC system 100 is deployed within the interior of a vehicle”) comprising:
a sound control system (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 52: “an ANC system 100”; and Fig. 1) configured to control sound within a sound control zone relative to a seat (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 157: “a headrest ANC system 700 configured to maintain a Quiet Bubble 702 around a head of a user of headrest 700”; paragraphs 38, 88; and Fig. 7), the sound control system comprising:
a plurality of acoustic transducers (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 59: “at least one acoustic transducer 108, e.g., a speaker. Controller 102 may control acoustic transducer 108 to generate an acoustic noise control pattern configured to control the noise within noise control zone 110”; and paragraphs 63-64);
a plurality of noise sensors (see e.g. Cherkassky, Fig. 1: “Noise Inputs 104”) to generate a plurality of noise inputs representing acoustic noise at a plurality of noise sensing locations (see e.g. paragraph 55: “receive a plurality of noise inputs 104 representing acoustic noise at a plurality of predefined noise sensing locations 105”);
a plurality of residual-noise sensors (see e.g. Cherkassky, Fig. 1: “Residual Noise 106”) to generate a plurality of residual-noise inputs representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of residual-noise sensing locations within the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 57: “receive a plurality of residual-noise inputs 106 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations 107, which are located within noise-control zone 110”); and
a controller (see e.g. Cherkassky, Fig. 1: “ANC Controller 102”) comprising circuitry (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 30: “circuits”), the controller configured to determine a sound control pattern to control sound within the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 53: “a controller 102 to control noise within a predefined noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern”) and to output the sound control pattern to the plurality of acoustic transducers (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 59: “at least one acoustic transducer 108, e.g., a speaker. Controller 102 may control acoustic transducer 108 to generate an acoustic noise control pattern configured to control the noise within noise control zone 110”; paragraphs 63-64), the controller configured to determine the sound control pattern based on the plurality of noise inputs (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 60: “controller 102 may be configured to determine a noise control signal 109, based on noise inputs 104”), the plurality of residual-noise inputs (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 60: “controller 102 may be configured to determine a noise control signal 109, based on… residual-noise inputs 106”), and Active Acoustic Control (AAC) configuration information representing one or more parameters (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “noise pattern attributes”) affecting a real-time configuration of AAC (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “ANC system may be configured to control, reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone in a selective and/or configurable manner, e.g., based on one or more predefined noise pattern attributes, such that, for example, the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more first primary patterns may be affected by the secondary pattern, while the secondary pattern may have a reduced effect or even no effect on the noise energy, wave amplitude, phase, frequency, direction and/or statistical properties of one or more second primary patterns”) in the sound control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 44: “within the noise control zone”; and Fig. 2: “110”), …wherein the controller is configured to, based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”), mute the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”; and paragraph 109: “reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110”), adapt one or more AAC parameters (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”) for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “controller 102 may be configured to determine the noise control pattern to be reduced according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 137: “estimator 310 may be able to adapt one or more parameters of the estimation function based on a plurality of residual-noise inputs 316 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations”), or halt an adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 87: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to… not reducing one or more second noise patterns within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 88: “not reducing one or more second noise patterns, e.g., including an audio noise pattern of an audio device located within the vehicle, a horn noise pattern, a siren noise pattern, a hazard noise pattern of a hazard, an alarm noise pattern of an alarm signal, a noise pattern of an informational signal, and the like”).
Cherkassky does not but Bowden teaches:
a plurality of seats (see e.g. paragraph 31: “the seats in the vehicle 22”);
wherein the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Bowden, paragraph 22: “additional input”) is different from the plurality of noise inputs and the plurality of residual-noise inputs (see e.g. Bowden, paragraph 22: “sound modification controller 30 of the exemplary embodiment is also in communication with an engine control unit 44 (ECU) through a controller area network 46 (CAN) bus to provide an additional input to the algorithm”; and paragraph 27: “ANR controller 26 could use the engine ECU 44, the vehicle speed sensor 36, the vehicle acceleration sensor 38 or the throttle position sensor 40 as additional inputs for generating the opposing sound wave signal”), the AAC configuration information comprises information from a system bus (see e.g. Bowden, Fig. 1: “46”) of the vehicle (see e.g. Bowden, paragraph 22: “sound modification controller 30 of the exemplary embodiment is also in communication with an engine control unit 44 (ECU) through a controller area network 46 (CAN) bus to provide an additional input to the algorithm”),
Cherkassky and Bowden are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: an apparatus for active noise control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cherkassky with the teachings of Bowden. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve vehicle occupants’ comfort (see e.g. Bowden, paragraph 20) and increase the accuracy of the noise control process; thus improving overall the efficiency of the system.
Claim 18-20, 27, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherkassky in view of Bowden as applied to claims 2 and 35 above, and further in view of Neumaier et al. (US 2021/0014600 A1; hereinafter Neumaier).
With respect to claim 18, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2,
Cherkassky does not but Neumaier teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine an identity of a user based on the AAC configuration information, and to determine the sound control pattern based on the identity of the user (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user)”; and paragraph 71: “ultrasonic reflection from the ear may be used to identify the ear of a specific user. With this identification, the headphone may be enabled just for a specific user and/or specific user profiles including acoustic properties like maximum level, frequency response, loudness, etc. can be activated. In addition, it may be used to identify the left and right ear for automatic left/right audio channel switching”).
Cherkassky and Neumaier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: an apparatus for active noise control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cherkassky with the teachings of Neumaier. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user-friendliness of the system.
With respect to claim 19, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 18,
Cherkassky does not but Neumaier teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine a setting of one or more sound control parameters based on the identity of the user (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “determining at least one operation parameter related to a previously stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user) and/or to a determined profile (user categorization, e.g., small/large ear cup; left/right ear cup); and for controlling the portable device based on the operation parameter”), and to determine the sound control pattern based on the setting of the one or more sound control parameters (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “determining at least one operation parameter related to a previously stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user) and/or to a determined profile (user categorization, e.g., small/large ear cup; left/right ear cup); and for controlling the portable device based on the operation parameter”; and paragraph 71: “headphone may be enabled just for a specific user and/or specific user profiles including acoustic properties like maximum level, frequency response, loudness, etc. can be activated”).
Cherkassky and Neumaier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: an apparatus for active noise control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cherkassky with the teachings of Neumaier. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user-friendliness of the system.
With respect to claim 20, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 2,
Cherkassky does not but Neumaier teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to identify, based on the AAC configuration information, a user to control a user preference for the sound control zone (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “determining at least one operation parameter related to a previously stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user) and/or to a determined profile (user categorization, e.g., small/large ear cup; left/right ear cup); and for controlling the portable device based on the operation parameter”), and, based on identification of the user, to determine a setting of one or more sound control parameters for the sound control zone (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “determining at least one operation parameter related to a previously stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user) and/or to a determined profile (user categorization, e.g., small/large ear cup; left/right ear cup); and for controlling the portable device based on the operation parameter”; and paragraph 71: “headphone may be enabled just for a specific user and/or specific user profiles including acoustic properties like maximum level, frequency response, loudness, etc. can be activated”).
Cherkassky and Neumaier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: an apparatus for active noise control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cherkassky with the teachings of Neumaier. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user-friendliness of the system.
With respect to claim 27, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The apparatus of claim 26,
Cherkassky does not but Neumaier teaches:
wherein the plurality of sound control profiles comprises a user-based profile corresponding to a user (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “determining at least one operation parameter related to a previously stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user) and/or to a determined profile (user categorization, e.g., small/large ear cup; left/right ear cup); and for controlling the portable device based on the operation parameter”; and paragraph 71: “headphone may be enabled just for a specific user and/or specific user profiles including acoustic properties like maximum level, frequency response, loudness, etc. can be activated”), the user-based profile comprising a setting of one or more sound control parameters based on a preference of the user (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 71: “ultrasonic reflection from the ear may be used to identify the ear of a specific user. With this identification, the headphone may be enabled just for a specific user and/or specific user profiles including acoustic properties like maximum level, frequency response, loudness, etc. can be activated. In addition, it may be used to identify the left and right ear for automatic left/right audio channel switching”), wherein the controller is configured to identify the user based on the AAC configuration information (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user)”).
Cherkassky and Neumaier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: an apparatus for active noise control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cherkassky with the teachings of Neumaier. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user-friendliness of the system.
With respect to claim 36, Cherkassky as modified teaches: The vehicle of claim 35,
Cherkassky does not but Neumaier teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine an identity of a user based on the AAC configuration information, and to determine the sound control pattern based on the identity of the user (see e.g. Neumaier, paragraph 69: “stored user profile (user identification, i.e., ear cup profile may be associated with a specific user)”; and paragraph 71: “ultrasonic reflection from the ear may be used to identify the ear of a specific user. With this identification, the headphone may be enabled just for a specific user and/or specific user profiles including acoustic properties like maximum level, frequency response, loudness, etc. can be activated. In addition, it may be used to identify the left and right ear for automatic left/right audio channel switching”).
Cherkassky and Neumaier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: an apparatus for active noise control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cherkassky with the teachings of Neumaier. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user-friendliness of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In detail:
(i) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation “the controller is configured to, based on the AAC configuration information, mute the sound control pattern, adapt one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern, or halt an adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern” recited in claim 1, and the similar limitations recited in claims 33 and 35, the Examiner notes that Cherkassky discloses an ANC Controller 102 (i.e. a controller) utilizing noise pattern attributes to control noise within a predefined noise-control zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraphs 53, 60, 86), including:
(a) eliminating the noise within the noise-control zone (i.e. muting) (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced”; and paragraph 109: “reduce and/or eliminate noise within the noise control zone 110”),
(b) reducing the noise control pattern within the noise control-zone (i.e. adapting noise control parameters to reduce the noise control pattern) (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 86: “noise control pattern to be reduced according to at least one noise parameter, e.g., energy, amplitude, phase, frequency, direction, and/or statistical properties within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 137: “estimator 310 may be able to adapt one or more parameters of the estimation function based on a plurality of residual-noise inputs 316 representing acoustic residual-noise at a plurality of predefined residual-noise sensing locations”), and/or
(c) selectively not reducing the noise control pattern within the noise control-zone (see e.g. Cherkassky, paragraph 87: “controller 102 may determine the noise control pattern to… not reducing one or more second noise patterns within noise-control zone 110”; and paragraph 88: “not reducing one or more second noise patterns, e.g., including an audio noise pattern of an audio device located within the vehicle, a horn noise pattern, a siren noise pattern, a hazard noise pattern of a hazard, an alarm noise pattern of an alarm signal, a noise pattern of an informational signal, and the like”)
As such, Cherkassy teaches the limitations “the controller is configured to, based on the AAC configuration information, mute the sound control pattern, adapt one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern, or halt an adaptation of the one or more AAC parameters for determining the sound control pattern”. For more details, please see the rejection directed to claims 1, 33, and 35 above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation “wherein the AAC configuration information is different from the noise information and the residual-noise information, the AAC configuration information comprises information from a system bus of a vehicle comprising the sound control zone” recited in claim 1, and the similar limitations recited in claims 33 and 35, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
More specifically, Cherkassky does not explicitly disclose receiving information from a system bus of a vehicle to configure a sound control zone.
However, Bowden discloses receiving information from an engine control unit 44 through a controller are network bus 46 to be utilized as an additional input for a sound control algorithm within a vehicle (see e.g. Bowden, paragraphs 22, 27; Fig. 1).
For more details, please see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action, or accompanied with a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d), and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 2022/0194389 A1) discloses an apparatus for establishing a sound control zone within a vehicle, the apparatus comprising a control filter for forming separate sound zones (see paragraphs 12, 13, 36, 41, 42).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
