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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the person” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HIROYUKI (Japanese Pub. No. JP2018160810A).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-8, HIROYUKI teaches a vehicle-mounted human-machine interaction system, comprising:
a piezoelectric sound-generating circuit disposed in a cavity between a body panel as an outer surface of a vehicle and an interior panel as an inner surface of the vehicle and attached to either the body panel or the interior panel (paragraph 0057: "speaker S is formed using the outer wall material of the vehicle body 1 as the diaphragm 21"; fig. 4; paragraph 0031:
"using a piezoelectric element");
a wake-up subsystem configured to wake up an on-board controller to turn on a human- machine interaction function based on at least one of voices, movements, or images of objects outside the vehicle (paragraph 0065: "provide a microphone M. it is determined that the user of the vehicle has approached. "); and
the on-board controller configured to output an audio signal to the piezoelectric sound- generating circuit after being woken by the wake-up subsystem to turn on the human-machine interaction function such that as being excited by the audio signal, the piezoelectric sound- generating circuit vibrates the body panel or the interior panel to emit a voice to an exterior of the vehicle (paragraph 0065: "sound information such as "Good morning" is output from the speaker S").
Regarding claim 8, HIROYUKI teaches one or more external microphones disposed on an outside of the body panel and configured to receive a voice input from an object outside the vehicle (paragraph 0065); and
wherein the on-board controller is further configured to play the received voice input of the person outside the vehicle to a person inside vehicle via a built-in speaker inside the vehicle, or to perform a semantic analysis on the voice input of the object outside the vehicle, and perform control operation on the vehicle based on results of the semantic analysis (paragraph 0065: "It is also possible to use the microphone M to release the door lock by instructions of the user's words or to open the door.").
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROYUKI (Japanese Pub. No. JP 2020036576 A) in view of YASUYUKI et al. (U.S. Pub. No. JP2012253568A) further in view of Chou (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0119587).
Regarding claim 2, HIROYUKI teaches wherein the piezoelectric sound- generating circuit comprises:
a driver circuit configured to receive the audio signal from the on-board controller (par. [0065]).
However, HIROYUKI does not specifically teach converting the audio signal into an excitation voltage. YASUYUKI teaches converting the audio signal into an excitation voltage (first paragraph under “Problem 2” of page 4, fifth and sixth paragraphs of page 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI to incorporate the feature of converting the audio signal into an excitation voltage in HIROYUKI’s invention in order to drive a speaker conveniently.
HIROYUKI further in view of YASUYUKI does not specifically teach a piezoelectric ceramic speaker configured to, driven by the excitation voltage generated by the driver circuit, drive the body panel or the interior panel attached thereto to vibrate, thereby emitting the voice. Chou teaches a piezoelectric ceramic speaker configured to, driven by the excitation voltage generated by the driver circuit, drive the body panel or the interior panel attached thereto to vibrate, thereby emitting the voice (abstract; fig.1-fig.3; paragraphs 0001, 0002, 0004, 0006-0007, 00016, 0024, 0026). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI in view of YASUYUKI to incorporate the feature of a piezoelectric ceramic speaker configured to, driven by the excitation voltage generated by the driver circuit, drive the body panel or the interior panel attached thereto to vibrate, thereby emitting the voice in HIROYUKI’s invention in view of YASUYUKI’s invention in order to achieve a better resonance effect.
Claims 9, 11, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROYUKI (Japanese Pub. No. JP 2020036576 A) in view of Yue et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN107454249A).
Regarding claim 9, HIROYUKI teaches wherein the wake-up subsystem comprises: a sensing component disposed on the outside of the vehicle and configured to sense at least one of voices, movements, or images of objects outside the vehicle (paragraphs 0065-0067);
a wake-up processor configured to determine whether at least one of the sensed voice, movement, or image satisfies a predetermined wake-up condition, and to wake up the on-board controller to turn on (paragraphs 0065, 0067: “causing the speaker S at the position closest to the person to recognize the existence of the automobile when the person is detected it may set.”).
However, HIROYUKI does not specifically teach a wake-up processor configured to wake up controller to turn on the human-machine interaction function in response to the predetermined wake-up condition being determined to be satisfied. Yue teaches a wake-up processor configured to wake up controller to turn on the human-machine interaction function in response to the predetermined wake-up condition being determined to be satisfied (last paragraph of page 5 and third paragraph of page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI to incorporate the feature of a wake-up processor configured to wake up controller to turn on the human-machine interaction function in response to the predetermined wake-up condition being determined to be satisfied in HIROYUKI’s invention as taught by Yue. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to save time such that the interaction operation can be performed efficiently.
Regarding claim 11, HIROYUKI teaches wherein the sensing component comprises: one or more sensors disposed on the outside of the body panel and configured to sense a distance between an object outside the vehicle and the body panel (paragraphs 0065-0067);
wherein the wake-up processor is configured to determine whether the distance satisfies a predetermined distance threshold, and to wake up the on-board controller in response to the distance being determined to satisfy the predetermined distance threshold (paragraphs 0065) (Note; in paragraph 0065, HIROYUKI teaches “sense a distance” and "it is determined that the user of the vehicle has approached,"”).
Regarding claim 14, HIROYUKI teaches one or more external microphones disposed on an outside of the body panel and configured to receive a voice input from a person outside the vehicle (paragraphs 0065-0067);
wherein after being woken up by the wake-up processor, the on-board controller is further configured to perform control operation of the vehicle based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle (paragraphs 0065; "It is also possible to use the microphone M to release the door lock by instructions of the user's words or to open the door.”).
Regarding claim 15, HIROYUKI in view of Yue does not specifically teach establishing a communication connection with a remote vehicle owner through a vehicle- mounted mobile communication circuit, such that the remote vehicle owner can view objects outside the vehicle or conduct video communication with the person outside the vehicle through the communication connection. Examiner takes an official notice that establishing a communication connection with a remote vehicle owner through a vehicle- mounted mobile communication circuit, such that the remote vehicle owner can view objects outside the vehicle or conduct video communication with the person outside the vehicle through the communication connection is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI in view of Yue to incorporate the feature of establishing a communication connection with a remote vehicle owner through a vehicle- mounted mobile communication circuit, such that the remote vehicle owner can view objects outside the vehicle or conduct video communication with the person outside the vehicle through the communication connection in HIROYUKI’s invention in view of Yue’s invention in order to get benefit out of using a video communication with the person outside the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, HIROYUKI teaches one or more external microphones disposed on an outside of the body panel and configured to receive a voice input from a person outside the vehicle (paragraphs 0065-0067);
wherein after being woken up by the wake-up processor, the on-board controller is further configured to perform control operation of the vehicle based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle (paragraphs 0065) (Note; in paragraph 0065, HIROYUKI teaches “provide
a microphone M. it is determined that the user of the vehicle has approached.”).
Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROYUKI (Japanese Pub. No. JP 2020036576 A) in view of Yue et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN107454249A) further in view of ASHTIANI et al. (International Pub. No. WO 2017019760 A1).
Regarding claim 10, HIROYUKI teaches wherein the sensing component comprises: one or more vibration sensors disposed on the outside of the body panel or on vehicle glasses (paragraphs 0065, 0067); and
HIROYUKI in view of Yue does not specifically teach sensor configured to sense a knock on the body panel or on a vehicle glass by the person outside the vehicle, wherein the wake-up processor is configured to determine whether the knock sensed by the one or more vibration sensors satisfies a predetermined knock condition, and to wake up the on-board controller in response to the knock being determined to satisfy the predetermined knock condition.
ASHTIANI teaches sensor configured to sense a knock on the body panel or on a vehicle glass by the person outside the vehicle, wherein the wake-up processor is configured to determine whether the knock sensed by the one or more vibration sensors satisfies a predetermined knock condition, and to wake up the on-board controller in response to the knock being determined to satisfy the predetermined knock condition (paragraph 0028: "the vehicle access assembly 400 is configured for detecting touch or sound from the exterior of the vehicle the user can touch the vehicle access assembly 400 and this touch triggers the piezoelectric transducer 406 as a sensor to sense the presence of a user (and in some cases, to sense different user behaviors)..."). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI in view of Yue to incorporate the feature of sensor configured to sense a knock on the body panel or on a vehicle glass by the person outside the vehicle, wherein the wake-up processor is configured to determine whether the knock sensed by the one or more vibration sensors satisfies a predetermined knock condition, and to wake up the on-board controller in response to the knock being determined to satisfy the predetermined knock condition in HIROYUKI’s invention in view of Yue’s invention in order to achieve a better resonance effect.
.
Regarding claims 12, 16 and 19, HIROYUKI teaches capturing an image of the person outside the vehicle (paragraph 0067);
wherein after being woken up by the wake-up processor, the on-board controller is configured to detect an approach of the person outside the vehicle based on the image of the person outside the vehicle, and to perform control operation of the vehicle in response to the person outside the vehicle being determined to be a predetermined person (paragraphs 0065, 0067); and
However, HIROYUKI further in view of Yue does not specifically teach one or more external cameras disposed on the outside of the body panel and determining an identity of the person outside the vehicle based on the image of the person. ASHTIANI teaches one or more external cameras disposed on the outside of the body panel and determining an identity of the person outside the vehicle based on the image of the person (paragraph 0028: " activation of a vehicle camera for vehicle action in response to camera-detected events "). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI in view of Yue to incorporate the feature of one or more external cameras disposed on the outside of the body panel and determining an identity of the person outside the vehicle based on the image of the person in HIROYUKI’s invention in view of Yue’s invention in order to provide an identity of a particular person using an image analysis.
Regarding claim 13, HIROYUKI in view of Yue further in view of ASHTIANI does not specifically teach establishing a communication connection with a remote vehicle owner through a vehicle- mounted mobile communication circuit, such that the remote vehicle owner can view objects outside the vehicle or conduct video communication with the person outside the vehicle through the communication connection. Examiner takes an official notice that establishing a communication connection with a remote vehicle owner through a vehicle- mounted mobile communication circuit, such that the remote vehicle owner can view objects outside the vehicle or conduct video communication with the person outside the vehicle through the communication connection is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI in view of Yue further in view of ASHTIANI to incorporate the feature of establishing a communication connection with a remote vehicle owner through a vehicle- mounted mobile communication circuit, such that the remote vehicle owner can view objects outside the vehicle or conduct video communication with the person outside the vehicle through the communication connection in HIROYUKI’s invention in view of Yue’s invention further in view of ASHTIANI’s invention in order to get benefit out of using a video communication with the person outside the vehicle.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 12. Furthermore, HIROYUKI further in view of Yue does not specifically teach one or more external cameras disposed on the outside of the body panel and determining an identity of the person outside the vehicle based on the image of the person. ASHTIANI teaches one or more external cameras disposed on the outside of the body panel and determining an identity of the person outside the vehicle based on the image of the person (paragraph 0028: "activation of a vehicle camera for vehicle action in response to camera-detected events " and paragraph 0053: "the vehicle access assembly 400 is configured for detecting touch or sound from the exterior of the vehicle the user can touch the vehicle access assembly 400 and this touch triggers the piezoelectric transducer 406 as a sensor to sense the presence of a user (and in some cases, to sense different user behaviors)..."). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI in view of Yue to incorporate the feature of one or more external cameras disposed on the outside of the body panel and determining an identity of the person outside the vehicle based on the image of the person in HIROYUKI’s invention in view of Yue’s invention in order to detect a particular person using an image analysis of the person conveniently.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROYUKI (Japanese Pub. No. JP 2020036576 A) in view of Yue et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN107454249A) further in view of BADER et al. (International Pub. No. Chinese Pub. No. CN 112805677A).
Regarding claim 18, HIROYUKI teaches wherein the sensing component comprises: one or more external microphones disposed on an outside of the body panel and configured to receive a voice input from a person outside the vehicle (paragraphs 0065, 0067); and
HIROYUKI in view of Yue does not specifically teach wherein the wake-up processor is configured to determine whether the voice input of the person outside the vehicle matches a predetermined wake-up word or to determine whether the identity of the person outside the vehicle matches a predetermined person based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle, and in response to the voice input of the person outside the vehicle being determined to match the predetermined wake-up word or in response to the identity of the person outside the vehicle being determined to match the predetermined person based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle, the wake-up processor wakes up the on-board controller.
BADER teaches wherein the wake-up processor is configured to determine whether the voice input of the person outside the vehicle matches a predetermined wake-up word or to determine whether the identity of the person outside the vehicle matches a predetermined person based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle, and in response to the voice input of the person outside the vehicle being determined to match the predetermined wake-up word or in response to the identity of the person outside the vehicle being determined to match the predetermined person based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle, the wake-up processor wakes up the on-board controller (paragraph 0012: "the voice controller checks
whether the voice effect of the voice input corresponds to the stored voiceprint. The stored voiceprint corresponds to, for example, the voiceprint of the vehicle user determined in the previous setting procedure and stored in the voice controller."). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI in view of Yue to incorporate the feature of wherein the wake-up processor is configured to determine whether the voice input of the person outside the vehicle matches a predetermined wake-up word or to determine whether the identity of the person outside the vehicle matches a predetermined person based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle, and in response to the voice input of the person outside the vehicle being determined to match the predetermined wake-up word or in response to the identity of the person outside the vehicle being determined to match the predetermined person based on the voice input of the person outside the vehicle, the wake-up processor wakes up the on-board controller in HIROYUKI’s invention in view of Yue’s invention in order to verify a particular person based on stored voiceprint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 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 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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
February 8, 2026