DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 states “an engine RPM” which would be better as “an engine revolution-per-minute (RPM)” since RPM was not previously expressly described.
Claim 3 states “among the plurality of frequency sections”. However a plurality of frequency sections has not been officially introduced in any claim. It is suggested that “for each frequency section” in claim 1 (and a good suggestion for claim 5 as well) be changed to “for each frequency section of a plurality of frequency sections”. If applicant chooses not include such in claim 1, “among the plurality of frequency sections” must be removed from claim 3.
Claim 4 is objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 3 states “wherein the information stored in the lookup table includes information on a sum for each frequency section with high correlation among the plurality of frequency sections of the plurality of acceleration sensors according to the state variables of the vehicle” which is awkwardly worded. Perhaps this could be re-worded as something like: “wherein the information stored in the lookup table includes information, for each frequency section among the plurality of frequency sections of the plurality of acceleration sensors, on a sum representing high correlation, according to the state variables of the vehicle”.
Claim 4 is objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 4 states “selecting the error signal corresponding to the state variable of the vehicle from the information on the sum for each frequency section stored in the lookup table” which is referring to something different from the “an error signal” already mentioned in claim 1 (only one signal so selecting makes no sense). Looking at applicant’s specification (paragraph [0028]) it looks like this would be better as “selecting a target error signal corresponding to the state variable…” introduce it as a different signal.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
a noise collection unit in claim 5;
a active noise control unit in claim 5;
a noise output unit in claim 5;
an active noise target area setting unit in claim 6:
a target error signal estimation unit in claim 6;
a control signal generation unit in claim 6.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, are 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzhou (CN 110688956 A)(using translation provided from applicant in IDS dated 11/15/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Suzhou discloses an active noise control method for a vehicle (see title and abstract), comprising:
acquiring, from a lookup table , frequency section information corresponding to a current state of the vehicle, the lookup table storing information for each frequency section of a plurality of acceleration sensors for each of a plurality of state variables of the vehicle (fig.4; claim 1: "Step 1: Determine the main noise peak[s]: Based on the in-vehicle noise spectrum reflecting the in-vehicle noise signal, K noise peaks are selected as the main noise peaks, and the frequency fₖ corresponding to each of the main noise peaks is obtained as the main peak frequency, k = 1, 2,…K, Selecting the main peak frequencies one by one, and performing step 2-1 to step 2-2 for each of the main peak frequencies; Step 2-1: Calculate a constant coherence coefficient between a portion of each of the reference signals corresponding to the selected main peak frequency and a portion of the interior noise signal corresponding to the selected main peak frequency; Step 2-2: Sort the M reference signals based on the calculated sorting of each of the normal coherence coefficients from large to small", claim 1, 'Step 3-5' "a reference signal combination that controls the position and number of the full frequency road noise is obtained as the available reference signal");
generating a virtual reference signal from a plurality of reference signals of the plurality of acceleration sensors based on the frequency section information (claim 1, 'Step 3-5' "a reference signal combination that controls the position and number of the full frequency road noise is obtained as the available reference signal");
generating an active noise control signal based on the virtual reference signal (claim 2, “The selected available reference signal is applied to the active control method of automobile road noise”); and
outputting an active noise control sound based on the active noise control signal (claim 2, “The selected available reference signal is applied to the active control method of automobile road noise”).
Although Suzhou does not expressly disclose the use of an error signal, the examiner takes official notice that using an error signal in noise control was well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise use of an error signal in the system of Suzhou for the benefit of converging the system.
Regarding claim 2, Suzhou discloses wherein the plurality of state variables of the vehicle include at least one of a speed of the vehicle, an engine RPM of the vehicle (engine speed, paragraphs [0026] to [0028]), a surface condition of a road, a vibration of the vehicle, and a deceleration or acceleration of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Suzhou discloses active noise control apparatus for a vehicle (see title and “Technical field” section) comprising:
a noise collection unit configured to collect noise information using a plurality of noise collection apparatuses (claim 1 step 1, “Based on the in-vehicle noise spectrum reflecting the in-vehicle noise signal”, also paragraph [0018], step 2-1 “a portion of the interior noise signal”, also paragraph [0035]);
a plurality of acceleration sensors (see paragraphs [0057] and [0115]) disposed on a path through which a vibration is transferred to the vehicle and configured to sense a vibration causing noise on a road surface (see paragraphs [0013], [0057] and [0115], as well as paragraphs [0030] to [0033]);
an active noise control unit configured to generate a virtual reference signal using frequency section information corresponding to a current state of the vehicle based on the information for each frequency section of the plurality of acceleration sensors for each of a plurality of state variables (fig.4; claim 1: "Step 1: Determine the main noise peak[s]: Based on the in-vehicle noise spectrum reflecting the in-vehicle noise signal, K noise peaks are selected as the main noise peaks, and the frequency fₖ corresponding to each of the main noise peaks is obtained as the main peak frequency, k = 1, 2,…K, Selecting the main peak frequencies one by one, and performing step 2-1 to step 2-2 for each of the main peak frequencies; Step 2-1: Calculate a constant coherence coefficient between a portion of each of the reference signals corresponding to the selected main peak frequency and a portion of the interior noise signal corresponding to the selected main peak frequency; Step 2-2: Sort the M reference signals based on the calculated sorting of each of the normal coherence coefficients from large to small", claim 1, 'Step 3-5' "a reference signal combination that controls the position and number of the full frequency road noise is obtained as the available reference signal"); and
a noise output unit configured to output an active noise control sound generated by the active noise control unit (claim 2, “The selected available reference signal is applied to the active control method of automobile road noise”).
Although Suzhou does not expressly disclose the use of a plurality of noise collection apparatuses, the examiner takes official notice that using a plurality of noise collection apparatuses was well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise a plurality of noise collection apparatuses in the system of Suzhou for the benefit of gathering noise from multiple locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include 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 DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/PAUL KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695