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 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 states “wherein the active noise cancelling device varies at least one characteristic of a convergence speed or stability of a noise estimation function based on the driving information of the mobile vehicle, receive the correction signal, and generate the noise control signal based on the correction signal” which looks to be intending to show the active noise cancelling device performing 3 functions, however the wording does not match. Perhaps what is intended is: “wherein the active noise cancelling device varies at least one characteristic of a convergence speed or stability of a noise estimation function based on the driving information of the mobile vehicle, receives the correction signal, and generates the noise control signal based on the correction signal”
Claim 10 is objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 9 states “the active noise cancelling device of claim 1”, then “an audio transmission device outputting the noise control signal”. Wherein “an audio transmission device” does not acknowledge the wording of claim 1, while “the noise control signal” does acknowledge the wording of claim 1. Since the portion “the active noise cancelling device of claim 1” is intended as a shortcut to inserting the words of claim 1, acknowledging the wording is the correct way to handle subsequent language in claim 9. This makes it clear that the “audio transmission device” of claim 9 is the same as previously mentioned in claim 1. This applies to any other terms referenced from claim 1 as well.
Claim 10 is objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim 9 states refers to “a sound signal” which is confusing since claim 1 refers to “an input sound signal”. Given the objection above, it is suggested that claim 9 be changed to the form “An active noise cancelling system for a mobile vehicle, comprising:
the active noise cancelling device of claim 1;
a first audio input device through which the input sound signal is input;
the audio transmission device for outputting the noise control signal; and
a second audio input device to which a correction signal obtained by combining the input sound signal and …”
Claim 10 is objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon (US 20200327876 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses an active noise cancelling device (figure 1 item 400, see at least paragraphs [0031] to [0051]) for a mobile vehicle (10), comprising:
a noise extractor (see figures 1 and 2, at least 414 of 410, and 422 and 426 of 420, paragraph [0033]) configured to generate cancellation target noise information (at least output of 422 of figure 2) from an input sound signal (output of microphone 100); and
a controller (other parts of 400 including part of 420) configured to provide a noise control signal (from 400, sent to amp 300 and sent along to speaker 200 of figure 1, at least signal from 422 of figure 2) to an audio transmission device (speaker 200) based on the cancellation target noise information (422),
wherein the noise extractor is further configured to vary a period for generating the cancellation target noise information (paragraphs [0012] and [0039] to [0052]) based on driving information (at least output of 424 of figure 2, see paragraphs [0052] and [0144], “based on changes in driving conditions such as a road or a vehicle speed”) of the mobile vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Kwon discloses wherein, when the driving information of the mobile vehicle is received, the noise extractor predicts a level of noise generation according to a driving situation by comparing the received driving information with pre-stored data (at least 426-1 of figure 5, variation delta v compared to reference variation alpha to detect greater change in noise level, paragraphs [0082] - [0084]).
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 20200327876 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon discloses wherein the noise extractor varies the period for generating the cancellation target noise information based on the driving information of the mobile vehicle (as above in claim 1), and the driving information of the mobile vehicle includes speed information (“based on changes in driving conditions such as a road or a vehicle speed”, paragraphs [0051] and [0144], also see paragraphs [0005] to [0006]).
Although Kwon is silent to exactly what kind of speed information was used, it would have been obvious to the designer that any type of speed information may be collected at their preference, including acceleration data (which is change in speed over time, similar to change in road roughness delta v, paragraph [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the driving information of the mobile vehicle includes at least acceleration information in the system of Kwon for the benefit of adjusting to an accelerating/decelerating vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of claim 3 teaches wherein the noise extractor varies the period for generating the cancellation target noise information according to a level of acceleration of the mobile vehicle based on the acceleration information (varies period based on driving conditions, paragraphs [0051] and [0144], claim 3 shows obvious to have driving conditions include acceleration).
Claim(s) 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 20200327876 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20150364125 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon discloses wherein the noise extractor varies the period for generating the cancellation target noise information based on the driving information of the mobile vehicle (as above in claim 1), and the driving information of the mobile vehicle includes driving conditions including speed information (“based on changes in driving conditions such as a road or a vehicle speed”, paragraphs [0051] and [0144], also see paragraphs [0005] to [0006]).
Kwon does not expressly disclose wherein the driving information include the torque, RPM, or pedal/brake information.
Park discloses an environmental sound adjusting device for a mobile vehicle adjusted based on driving information (see abstract, figure 2, at least paragraphs [0034], [0035], [0012], and [0044], see claim 19),
wherein the driving information of the mobile vehicle includes at least one of acceleration information, torque output information (from sensor 304, paragraph [0044]), revolutions per minute (RPM) output information (from sensor 302, paragraph [0044]), or pedal and brake input/output information of the mobile vehicle (from sensor 308, paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the driving information of Park in the system of Kwon for the benefit of making more informed decisions by getting more information of the driving situation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Kwon, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein the noise extractor varies the period for generating the cancellation target noise information according to a level of torque output of the mobile vehicle based on the torque output information (from sensor 305, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses wherein the noise extractor varies the period for generating the cancellation target noise information according to a level of RPM output of the mobile vehicle based on the RPM output information (from sensor 302, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses wherein the noise extractor varies the period for generating the cancellation target noise information based on the pedal and brake input/output information (from sensor 308, paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 20200327876 A1) in view of Wurm (US 20100014685 A1).
Kwon discloses wherein the noise extractor generates the cancellation target noise information using a noise cancelling algorithm and varies the period for generating the cancellation target noise information by varying a convergence coefficient of the algorithm according to the driving information of the mobile vehicle (as above, see at least paragraphs [0012] and [0039] to [0052]).
Kwon does not expressly disclose using an FxLMS algorithm.
Wurm discloses wherein a noise filter generates a cancellation target noise information using a filtered-x least mean square (FxLMS) algorithm (see abstract, figures 4A and 6A, paragraphs [0018], [0024], [0034] to [0049], and [0054] to [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the FxLMS algorithm of Wurm in the system of Kwon for the benefit of reusing an existing implementation design, thereby reducing engineering costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wurm with Kwon, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the claim as a whole is not obvious over the closest prior art, such as Kwon (US 20200327876 A1), Park et al. (US 20150364125 A1), and Wurm (US 20100014685 A1).
None of the closest prior art expressly teaches or reasonably suggests, “an active noise cancelling system for a mobile vehicle, comprising:
a first audio input device through which a sound signal is input;
the active noise cancelling device of claim 1;
…
wherein the active noise cancelling device varies at least one characteristic of a convergence speed or stability of a noise estimation function based on the driving information of the mobile vehicle, receive the correction signal, and generate the noise control signal based on the correction signal“, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, in a manner as claimed.
Dependent claim 10 is allowed because it contains all the limitations of claim 9 as above.
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