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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perez (US 2024/0286578 A1) and in view of Takashima (US 2003/0179672 A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 7, Perez discloses a system and method for controlling an information system to play back music based on the SOC of the battery (110) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraphs 0028, 0040, 0064.
Perez is silent regarding “altering, by the control unit, an audio output of a play-back to emphasize an auditory aspect of the audio output based on the determined state of charge.”
Takashima discloses a system for playing back music in a plurality of audio formats based on the voltage level of battery (17) (see paragraphs 0038, and 0039), wherein the control unit (16) restricting a playback of music requiring power whose amount exceeds a given value when the voltage level is lower than a threshold value (see further paragraphs 0064-0067).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Perez reference by substituting the teachings as taught by Takashima to achieve predictable results: restricting the use of high-power-consuming audio format when the battery voltage level falls below specific thresholds.
Regarding claim 2, Takashima discloses a playback apparatus and power-saving method in which the control unit (16) determines whether the remaining amount of charge of the battery, determining the music in a format requires larger amount of power consumption (see at least paragraphs 0065, and 0066).
Regarding claims 3, and 4, Takashima further teaches that the control unit is configured to restrict a playback of music in one of a plurality of audio formats, which requires power consumption whose amount exceeds a given value (see Fig. 6; paragraphs 0064, and 0065).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, in Takashima, the nature of the play-back is adjusted according to the remaining amount of charge of the battery (see paragraphs 0056, 0066, and 0067).
Regarding claims 8, and 9, Perez discloses that the motor vehicle (100) comprises an electric drive system (e.g., electric motor 104, braking system 106, steering system 108), a battery (110), a powertrain electronic control unit (ECU) (102), wherein the battery (110) is designed to supply electrical energy to the electric drive system (see paragraph 0027), and a system for playing music (see Fig. 8, paragraphs 0070, and 0072).
Regarding claims 10-12, in Takashima, the sensor (39) senses the remaining amount of charge of the battery (see paragraphs 0060-0066), and sends the sensing result to the control unit (16) which starts power-saving control when the playback mode is set. Takashima suggests “audio alteration” such as the following: a) if the battery voltage BL falls below the first threshold X, the system alters playback by restricting audio format A; b) If the voltage drops further below the second threshold Y, the system further restricts playback, restricting both formats A and B.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s amendment and arguments/remarks filed on 01/19/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner. The previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn as the claims are now eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments on pages 7-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed herein, Perez fails to disclose the features of “altering, by the control unit, an audio output of a play-back to emphasize an auditory aspect of the audio output based on the determined state of charge.” However, Takashima does disclose and suggest the missing features from Perez.
Takashima discloses a system for playing back music in a plurality of audio formats based on the voltage level of battery (17), wherein the control unit (16) restricting a playback of music requiring power whose amount exceeds a given value when the voltage level is lower than a threshold value. Takashima suggests “audio alteration” by describing the following: a) if the battery voltage BL falls below the first threshold X, the system alters playback by restricting audio format A; b) If the voltage drops further below the second threshold Y, the system further restricts playback, restricting both formats A and B. Takashima’s system is capable to alter the playback based upon a specific threshold of the battery level. Takashima absolutely suggests emphasizing or changing particular aspects of the audio output.
Conclusions
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights