DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2023 is being considered by the examiner. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3-5 and 14 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 3 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of a vehicle. Claims 4-5 and 14 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 6 , 8- 13 , 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters, G. et al ( “Online Music Search by Tapping”, Ambient Intelligence in Everyday Life, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3864, 2006) . Regarding claim 1, Peters teaches a method for controlling an audio device (Abstract, query by tapping for content-based music retrieval) , the method comprising: receiving an input representing at least one acoustic or haptic pattern (Section 4 lines 6-7, “user taps the rhythm of a song’s melody”) ; determining an audio file containing the pattern ( Section 4 line 9, search results ) ; controlling the audio device to indicate, play back, or store the audio file (Section 4 lines 9-10, “the search results are displayed in the browser”) . Regarding claim 2, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pattern comprises a rhythm (Section 4 lines 6-7, “user taps the rhythm of a song’s melody”) . Regarding claim 6, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a second input representing a melody (Section 4 lines 6-7, “user taps the rhythm of a song’s melody”) . Regarding claim 8, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the input in a storage device (Section 4.2 line 9, MIDI file generated based on user tapping) . Regarding claim 9, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining an audio file comprises searching an audio file associated with the pattern and/or the or a melody in a database (Section 4 lines 9-10, input is sent to application server for analysis) . Regarding claim 10, Peters teaches the method of claim 9, wherein determining an audio file further comprises classifying the found audio files associated with the pattern, based on an association of the audio files with the pattern, the or a melody, metadata related to the audio files, and/or usage statistics (Section 4.2 lines 10-15, Midi library used to parse and analyze MIDI files. Strings are generated representing the rhythm which are then compared to the library for string matching) . Regarding claim 11, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining an audio file comprises composing an audio file associated with the pattern (Section 4.2 line 9, MIDI file generated based on user tapping) . Regarding claim 12, Peters teaches the method of claim 10 , wherein classifying the found audio file and/or composing an audio file is further based on a program selected by a user, and/or one or more sensor inputs generated by sensors comprised in or attached to the or a vehicle (Section 4.3 lines 12-14, user feedback indicating whether the song is guessed correctly) . Regarding claim 13, Peters teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the audio file is further associated with the melody (Section 4 lines 6-7, “user taps the rhythm of a song’s melody”) . Regarding claim 15, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the audio file in a memory, wherein the memory is comprised in the audio device and/or a network-accessible server (Section 4.2 line 9, MIDI file generated based on user tapping) . Regarding claim 17, Peters teaches a system for controlling an audio device, the system comprising a processor (Section 4 line 1 , web based system for music search, a processor is required to perform website based functions ) configured to receive an input representing at least one acoustic or haptic pattern (Section 4 lines 6-7, “user taps the rhythm of a song’s melody”) , determine an audio file containing the pattern (Section 4 line 9, search results ) , and control the audio device to indicate, play back, or store the audio file (Section 4 lines 9-10, “the search results are displayed in the browser”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 3-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, G. et al (“Online Music Search by Tapping”, Ambient Intelligence in Everyday Life, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3864, 2006) as applied to claim s above, and further in view of Aoki et al (US Pub No. 2014/0125583, hereinafter Aoki) . Regarding claim 3, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving an input is performed by at least one sensor, preferably comprising one or more of an audio sensor, an accelerometer, a force gauge, and/or a touch sensor (Section 4.1 lines 1-2, space bar of keyboard (touch sensor)) . Peters does not explicitly teach a sensor located in a vehicle. Aoki teaches a mobile device having input sensors located in a vehicle (See Aoki Fig 4, mobile device 28) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the mobile device taught by Aoki with the method taught by Peters. Peters (section 4.1) states that their web application is accessible to a user via a website. It is well known in the art that mobile devices have internet capabilities allowing access to web applications providing ease of use and portability to users. Regarding claim 4, Peters in view of Aoki teaches the method of claim 3. Peters does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor is arranged in a vehicle. Aoki teaches a mobile device having input sensors located in a vehicle (See Aoki Fig 4, mobile device 28) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the mobile device taught by Aoki with the method taught by Peters in view of Aoki. Peters (section 4.1) states that their web application is accessible to a user via a website. It is well known in the art that mobile devices have internet capabilities allowing access to web applications providing ease of use and portability to users. Regarding claim 5, Peters in view of Aoki teaches the method of claim 3. Peters does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor is attached to or comprised in reachable distance to a seated driver and/or passenger of the vehicle, preferably one or more of a steering wheel, a dashboard, an armrest, a seat, a seat belt, or a door of the vehicle. Aoki teaches a mobile device comprising a sensor in reachable distance to a seated driver (See Aoki Fig 4, mobile device 28) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the mobile device taught by Aoki with the method taught by Peters in view of Aoki. Peters (section 4.1) states that their web application is accessible to a user via a website. It is well known in the art that mobile devices have internet capabilities allowing access to web applications providing ease of use and portability to users. Regarding claim 14, Peters teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the step of determining an audio file is executed by a network-accessible server (Section 4.2 lines 10-15, server analysis) . Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, G. et al (“Online Music Search by Tapping”, Ambient Intelligence in Everyday Life, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3864, 2006) as applied to claim s above, and further in view of Barvesten et al (US Pub No. 201 9 / 0337389 , hereinafter Barvesten ) . Regarding claim 7, Peters teaches the method of claim 1. Peters does not explicitly teach applying a noise or disturbance filter to the input. Barvesten teaches an input ambient noise filter (See Barvesten ¶ [0084], ambient noise filter) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the filter taught by Barvesten with the method taught by Peters. Input noise filters are well known in the art and provide several benefits including the preservation of input integrity and input quality providing an enhanced user experience. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TYLER LIEBGOTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1818 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 10-6:30 EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Fan Tsang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7547 . 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. /T.M.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2694 /FAN S TSANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694