DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2022 107 293.2, filed on 03/15/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 16-23 and 25-31 filed on 08/24/2026 are presently examined. Claims 1-15 and 24 are cancelled. Claims 16 and 29 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the interpretation is maintained.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record do not teach the independent claims as amended in the claims filed 08/24/2026. The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
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:
“output module” in claims 16, 17 described in Applicant’s specification as [0008] “the output module may comprise the at least one loudspeaker.”, [0012] “output module may comprise the display apparatus”.
“storage module” in claim 18 described in Applicant’s specification as [0018] “a
storage module that stores, in particular permanently stores (as opposed to temporary buffer- storage in the case of streaming.”
“interface module” in claim 18 is described in Applicant’s specification as [0019] “The interface module can communicate with the external unit by means of a wireless connection (e.g., Bluetooth, WLAN, NFC, etc.).”
“artificial intelligence module configured to take” described in Applicant’s specification as [0081] “artificial intelligence module 130 comprises a trained algorithm”, [0065] “The system comprises one or more processors”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-23 and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 29 recite “the degree of synchronization between the lip movement and the music output as a basis for controlling at least one vehicle function in order to provide the at least one vehicle occupant with feedback in relation to the reaction in response to the music output, wherein the at least one vehicle function controlled based on the degree of synchronization is distinct from a karaoke scoring function.” Examiner notes “karaoke scoring function” and the concept of scoring or scores are not supported in Applicant’s specification. “Good” and “poor” performances are supported, however these are relative terms.
Claims 16 and 19 recite “the at least one output parameter includes a volume, wherein controlling the volume comprises increasing the volume when the degree of synchronization between the lip movement and the music output is below a threshold.” Examiner notes there is no support for thresholds in Applicant’s specification. “Good” and “poor” performances are supported, however these are relative terms.
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 16-23 and 25-31 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.
The term “subjectively improve” in claims 16 and 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “subjectively improve” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner suggests Applicant remove this portion of the limitation, as intended use limitations with no objective measure carry no patentable weight, as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-23 and 25-31 are indicated as allowable if the remaining 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 16 and 29 recite similar limitations and claim 16 is used as a representative independent claim. The prior art of record do not disclose nor reasonably suggest the following limitations present in the independent claims:
Take the reaction, including the lip movement and the degree of synchronization between the lip movement and the music output as a basis for controlling at least one vehicle function in order to provide the at least one vehicle occupant with feedback in relation to the reaction in response to the music output, wherein
the at least one vehicle function controlled based on the degree of synchronization is distinct from a karaoke scoring function and includes at least one of an audible feedback function, a visual feedback function via a display apparatus in the vehicle interior, and a haptic feedback function via a steering wheel or interior lighting of the vehicle; and
control an output parameter of the music output based on the reaction, wherein the at least one output parameter includes a volume, wherein
controlling the volume comprises increasing the volume when the degree of synchronization between the lip movement and the music output is below a threshold, in order to subjectively improve the performance of the at least one vehicle occupant.
The closest prior art of record are An et al. (US 20200073478 A1), Tin et al (US 20200083856 A1) and Tatsuji (JP 5574130 B2)., hereinafter referred to as An, Tin, and Tatsuji.
An discloses a vehicle, and a control method thereof, prevents and/or suppresses a user's negative emotions by providing necessary feedback based on the user's emotional state. The vehicle includes a sensing unit configured to acquire user emotion information indicating a user's emotional state using at least one sensor, a storage configured to store situation information representing the numbers of expressions of respective emotional states in each unit situation and user long-term information representing the numbers of expressions of the respective emotional states for a unit period based on the acquired user emotion information, and a controller configured to control feedback devices provided in the vehicle to control the user's emotional state based on at least one of the situation information, the user long-term information, and the user emotion information.
Tin discloses a system for classifying sounds using a microphone, microphone array and/or a camera. The system can classify sounds and respective levels at different zones in an area such as a room, hall or vehicle passenger compartment. The system can use Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) to reduce unwanted sound and Automatic Loudness Control (ALC) to adjust levels of audio output such as music. The system can maintain a loudness ratio in each zone to create an optimal environment for music listening and/or conversation. The system can also be used to optimize the sound levels of broadcasted messages such as service announcements and advertisements.
Tatsuji discloses a karaoke apparatus that enjoys singing according to performance and a karaoke program, and more particularly, to a karaoke apparatus that enables singing and a karaoke program, which extracts lip shape feature information with the lip shape-vowel information, singing vowel information indicating which unvoiced sound and vowel the lip shape corresponds to is acquired, and calculates a performance score based on the lip shape of the singer against expected shape of the words sung in the lyrics.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
