DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 5/15/2024:
Claims 1-5 are pending
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 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sound acquisition unit”, “comparison unit” and “communication control” in claims 1-2; “analysis unit” in claim 3; “sound pickup unit” and “sound output unit” in claims 4-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 4-5 are 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 claims 4-5, they recite “the sound pickup unit is installed to face a direction where there are few factors that change acoustic features….” It is unclear and not defined as to how “a direction where there are a few factors that change acoustic features” is defined when installing the sound pickup unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed upon overcoming the above rejection(s).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to explicitly teach each and every element of the claimed invention. For example:
Regarding claim 1, Schimelpfenig et al (US20200314390) teaches a communication control device (abstract, device for controlling modules on a vehicle), comprising:
a sound acquisition unit (¶21, one or more microphones) configured to acquire surrounding sounds including at least a specific sound and picked up by a sound pickup unit upon output of the specific sound from a sound output unit;
However, Schimelpfenig’s teachings is directed towards using the one or more microphones based on a determined duty status of the vehicle wherein the one or more microphones are disabled/enabled as a result. Therefore, the reference does not explicitly teach using the microphone to capture a “specific sound” as required as well as fails to explicitly teach:
a comparison unit configured to make an analysis of and a comparison between acoustic features of reference surrounding sounds that are surrounding sounds picked up by the sound pickup unit upon output of the specific sound from the sound output unit at a time of initial setting and acoustic features of the surrounding sounds acquired by the sound acquisition unit at a time other than the time of initial setting; and
a communication control configured to, when determining that there is no difference between the reference surrounding sounds and the acquired surrounding sounds from a result of the comparison by the comparison unit, bring communication to and from an external device by wide area wireless communication or communication to and from a portable information terminal by short range wireless communication into a first state, and when determining that there is a difference between the reference surrounding sounds and the surrounding sounds from the result of the comparison by the comparison unit, bring the communication to and from the external device by the wide area wireless communication or the communication to and from the portable information terminal by the short range wireless communication into a second state more restricted than the first state.
Park et al (US20110092159) teaches bring communication to and from an external device by wide area wireless communication or communication to and from a portable information terminal by short range wireless communication into a first state and bring the communication to and from the external device by the wide area wireless communication or the communication to and from the portable information terminal by the short range wireless communication into a second state more restricted than the first state (Fig. 5, enabling/disabling communications to/from a user’s terminal device based on a comparison of the device’s location to a vehicle’s on-board system).
However, Park does not achieve the enabling/disabling of the communication capabilities as a result of using a microphone to capture a specific sound and using a comparison unit to compare acoustic features of a reference surrounding sound to a surround sound (paraphrased).
It could be summarized that Schimelpfenig in view of Park fail to disclose the “a sound acquisition unit configured to acquire … at least a specific sound and picked up by a sound pickup unit upon output of the specific sound from a sound output unit;
a comparison unit configured to make an analysis of and a comparison between acoustic features of reference surrounding sounds that are surrounding sounds picked up by the sound pickup unit upon output of the specific sound from the sound output unit at a time of initial setting and acoustic features of the surrounding sounds acquired by the sound acquisition unit at a time other than the time of initial setting; and
a communication control configured to, when determining that there is no difference between the reference surrounding sounds and the acquired surrounding sounds from a result of the comparison by the comparison unit… and when determining that there is a difference between the reference surrounding sounds and the surrounding sounds from the result of the comparison by the comparison unit….
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691