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 .
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.
Claims 8 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 8, the features where “the auditory sensor is disposed at an interior ceiling of the vehicle, vertically aligned with each of the in-wheel motors” is indefinite because the term “vertically aligned” is not clearly illustrated or described in the instant specification.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “vertically aligned” in claim 8 is used by the claim to possibly mean “vertically aligned with respect to a side-to-side axis”, where the auditory sensor disposed at an interior ceiling is illustrated, see instant Figure 1b, as being vertically aligned in a driver’s side to passenger’s side axis with the vehicle’s wheels, but the illustration, nor the specification, describes the vertical alignment in a front to rear axis, such that the auditory sensor is not directly aligned over the wheel), such that the accepted meaning of vertically aligned is “directly above and displaced by some height.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is indefinite because the term “vertically aligned” in claim 8, from which claim 10 depends, is not remedied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ellis et al. (US 2013/0070928 A1 and hereafter Ellis).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis anticipates:
“A method of determining a state of a vehicle using acoustic data and a low-frequency removal filter, the method comprising:
“acquiring, by an auditory sensor disposed at the vehicle, acoustic data generated from an outside of the vehicle” (see Ellis, ¶ 0050, where a microphone is provided on one or more places on the exterior of a vehicle to capture audio of the surrounding environment);
“removing, by a calculation section, a low-frequency component from the acoustic data, the calculation section being implemented using one or more computing devices” (see Ellis, ¶ 0040, where low frequency audio is filtered to mitigate some background noise, and see ¶ 0061 and 0092-0093, where the method is provided by computer software running on a computing device); and
“determining, by the calculation section, an external vehicle situation event based on the acoustic data from which the low-frequency component is removed” (see Ellis, ¶ 0028, where an external audio event is determined based on the detected type of audio, such as detecting an ambulance moving towards or away from the vehicle based on the detected siren noise).
Regarding claim 2, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Ellis anticipates the “method according to claim 1, wherein the auditory sensor is disposed at a rear side of the vehicle” (see Ellis, ¶ 0050, where microphones are placed at different positions including the rear of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Ellis anticipates the “method according to claim 1, further comprising transmitting, through a transceiver, information regarding the external vehicle situation event to an external object” (see Ellis, ¶ 0071-0072, where a transceiver is used to contact an emergency service with information regarding the detected event).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of well-known prior art.
Regarding claim 3, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Ellis teaches the method of claim 1, where low frequency audio is filtered to mitigate some background noise (see Ellis, ¶ 0040). However, Ellis does not appear to teach the features “wherein removing the low-frequency component comprises applying a Chebyshev filter to the acoustic data”.
Official Notice is given where one of ordinary skill in the art (OOSITA) at the time of the effective date would be familiar with various types of filters including Butterworth, Chebyshev, Elliptic, and Bessel filters. The filter type is chosen based on design factors, such as frequency response, phase shift, passband and/or stopband requirements, frequency roll-off, etc. For example, Chebyshev filters are known to have a steeper frequency roll-off as compared to Butterworth filters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Ellis with the well-known prior art to design an appropriate high-pass filter, such as choosing a Chebyshev filter design to improve the rejection of the low frequency components close to the cutoff frequency via a steep frequency roll-off.
Therefore, the combination of Ellis and the well-known art makes obvious the “method according to claim 1, wherein removing the low-frequency component comprises applying a Chebyshev filter to the acoustic data” because the well-known art makes obvious a Chebyshev filter design to improve the rejection of the low frequency components close to the cutoff frequency via a steep frequency roll-off.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Marti et al. (US 2015/0137998 A1 and hereafter Marti).
Regarding claim 6, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Ellis anticipates the method according to claim 1, wherein the auditory sensor is configured to determine a direction of the external vehicle situation event (see Ellis, ¶ 0050). Ellis does not appear to teach that measuring a time difference and/or an altitude of the event.
Marti teaches a system that alerts vehicle occupants to external events through detection of external sounds (see Marti, abstract). Marti teaches multiple audio detectors, such as microphones, that detect the timing of detected sound signals in order to determine the direction from which the detected sounds arrive (see Marti, figure 1, units 105 and ¶ 0015, 0017, and 0025-0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Ellis with the teachings of Marti to improve the detection of external events and provide three dimensional alerts for detected events (see Ellis, ¶ 0050 in view of Marti, ¶ 0033 and 0045).
Therefore, the combination of Ellis and Marti makes obvious the “method according to claim 1, wherein the auditory sensor is configured to measure a time difference, an azimuth, and an altitude of the external vehicle situation event” because Marti teaches that the time difference is used to determine direction, and makes obvious the detection of azimuth and altitude, or elevation, such that a 3D point or location of an external sound event is determined and conveyed to the passengers (see Marti, ¶ 0017, 0033, and 0045).
Regarding claim 7, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 6 above. The combination makes obvious the “method according to claim 6, wherein the calculation section is configured to determine at least one of a distance between the vehicle and the external vehicle situation event, a location at which the external vehicle situation event occurs, or a type of the external vehicle situation event” by making obvious the distance and/or speed of approach of an external event, such as detecting a car in the driver’s blind spot, or detecting an approaching emergency vehicle (see Marti, ¶ 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 13, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 11 above. Ellis teaches the method of claim 11, but does not appear to teach “a speaker disposed at an inside of the vehicle, and wherein the auditory sensor is configured to forward, to the vehicle, data from the external object”.
For the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Ellis with the teachings of Marti to improve the detection of external events and provide three dimensional alerts for detected events (see Ellis, ¶ 0050 in view of Marti, ¶ 0033 and 0045).
The combination makes obvious the “method according to claim 11, wherein the auditory sensor comprises a microphone disposed at an exterior of the vehicle and a speaker disposed at an inside of the vehicle, and wherein the auditory sensor is configured to forward, to the vehicle, data from the external object” because Marti makes obvious that detected acoustic events outside the vehicle are output to the occupants through speakers inside the vehicle (see Ellis, ¶ 0050 in view of Marti, ¶ 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 15, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 13 above. The combination makes obvious the “method according to claim 13, wherein the external object is a rescuer or a rescue vehicle” because Marti makes obvious the detection of an approaching emergency vehicle (see Marti, ¶ 0044-0045).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Snider et al. (US 2008/0273715 A1 and hereafter Snider).
Regarding claim 12, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 11 above. Ellis anticipates the method of claim 11, but does not appear to teach “an interior microphone disposed at an inside of the vehicle and a speaker disposed at an exterior of the vehicle”.
Snider discloses a vehicle external speaker and communication system, where a communication assembly allows communication to the inside and outside of a vehicle (see Snider, abstract). Herein, Snider teaches an exterior speaker in an exterior review mirror assembly (see Snider, figure 1, unit 20, and figures 2-3, units 20, 30, and 32, and ¶ 0022 and 0024-0025). The external speaker (and external microphone) allow the vehicle occupants a way to communicate with one or more persons outside the vehicle without opening a window or door (see Snider, figure 4, units 34 and 40, and ¶ 0027, 0029, and 0038-0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Ellis with the teachings of Snider for the purpose of communicating with one or more persons outside the vehicle without opening a window or door (see Ellis, ¶ 0072 in view of Snider, ¶ 0029 and 0038-0040).
Therefore, the combination of Ellis and Snider makes obvious the “method according to claim 11, wherein the auditory sensor comprises an interior microphone disposed at an inside of the vehicle and a speaker disposed at an exterior of the vehicle” (see Snider, figures 2-3, units 20 and 30, and ¶ 0022 and 0024-0025, and see Snider, figure 4, unit 34, and ¶ 0027), “and wherein the auditory sensor is configured to transmit, to the external object, data from an occupant located at the inside of the vehicle” because Snider makes obvious that the vehicle occupants are able to talk to other people outside the vehicle (see Ellis, ¶ 0072 in view of Snider, ¶ 0029 and 0038-0040).
Regarding claim 14, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 12 above. The combination makes obvious the “method according to claim 12, wherein the external object is a rescuer or a rescue vehicle” because it is obvious to allow voice communication with the emergency responders through the communication system taught by Snider (see Ellis, ¶ 0072 in view of Snider, ¶ 0029 and 0038-0040).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Canpolat et al. (US 2021/0012594 A1 and hereafter Canpolat) teaches a method for providing damage information on a vehicle to an external information center (see Canpolat, abstract);
Robinson et al. (US 2022/0279276 A1 and hereafter Robinson) teaches removing the low-frequency component using a high pass filter and teaches dynamically adjusting the order of the filter based on a wind noise analysis block (see Robinson, ¶ 0136); and
Lee et al. (US 2023/0260341 A1 and hereafter Lee) teaches an AI-based noise generation diagnosis apparatus for PE components of an electrical vehicle (see Lee, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel R Sellers whose telephone number is (571)272-7528. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-4:00.
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, Fan S Tsang can be reached at (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.
/Daniel R Sellers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694