Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
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.
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 1–6, 8, 10–13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0122573 (effectively filed 03 December 2019) (“Steinwedel”) and US Patent Application Publication 2022/0286757 (published 08 September 2022) (“Woo”).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Steinwedel and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0355336 (published 21 November 2019) (“Steinwedel II”).
Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111660773 A (15 September 2020) (“Hu”). Alternatively, claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a system for interactive and iterative media generation.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Steinwedel reference.
Claim 1
The Steinwedel Reference
“1. A system for interactive and iterative media generation, comprising:
The Steinwedel reference similarly describes a system and method for recording successive vocal performances and videos to accrete, or iteratively generate, a performance including multiple remote participants. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 56, 61, 71, 108. Steinwedel’s system is generally drawn to a smart phone that includes multiple applications, including a karaoke application that causes a computer to carry out specific karaoke functions. Id. at ¶¶ 1–6, 64, 118, FIG.12.
“loudspeakers configured to play back audio signals into an environment, the audio signals including karaoke content;
Steinwedel’s system and method includes an audiovisual device configured with a set of speakers to play background audio 104, 104A that includes karaoke content. Id. at ¶ 64, FIG.1. For example, speakers are included in a mobile phone 101 or TV 101A. Id. at ¶ 63, FIG.1.
“at least one microphone configured to receive microphone signals indicative of sound in the environment; and
The system and method further includes use of a microphone in mobile phone 101 to capture user vocals 103. Id. at ¶ 66, FIG.1.
“a processor programmed to receive a first microphone signal from the at least one microphone, the first microphone signal including a first user sound and karaoke content,
Device 101 includes a processor that receives the signal recorded by the device’s microphone. Id. at ¶¶ 66, 114, 115, FIG.6 (describing local processing of microphone signal). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that because Steinwedel’s device 101 is described as using a conventional phone microphone, the microphone signal would inherently contain all audio present in the environment, including both the user’s vocals as well as karaoke content due to leakage between the device’s speaker and the speakers of TV 101A.
“instruct the loudspeakers to play back the first microphone signal,
Steinwedel’s device 101 records the first microphone signal and combines it (111) with the existing background audio to create a new audio track. Id. at ¶¶ 70, 114, FIGs.1, 6. The new audio track is played so the user can hear it. Id. at ¶ 66, FIG.1.
“receiving a second microphone signal from the at least one microphone, the second microphone signal including the first user sound of the first microphone signal and a second user sound,
A second user with a second device records a second microphone signal that includes new vocals by recording over the new audio track produced by the first user. Id. at ¶¶ 99–108, FIG.4. And, like before, the second microphone will include new vocals and leakage from the second user’s speakers, so the second microphone signal will include the second user’s vocals and the first user’s first vocals.
“transmitting the second microphone signal, including the first and second microphone signals and the karaoke content, as an instance of iteratively-generated media content;
Device 101 transmits the second microphone signal to a server for further processing and distribution. Id. at ¶ 70.
“applying one or more audio effects to the first microphone signal for playback by the loudspeakers;
Steinwedel applies vocal effects, like pitch shifting, to recorded voice. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 6, 54, 76.
“identifying, in the first microphone signal, an utterance of a wake word; and
Steinwedel’s system is generally drawn to mobile smart phones, which typically include some form of voice assistant that detects a wake word.
Steinwedel, however, does not expressly describe a voice assistant or describe identifying a wake word in a first microphone signal.
“providing the first microphone signal for in car communications (ICC) and/or voice assistant functionality without the utterance being affected by voice effects or voice filters that are applied for karaoke.”
Steinwedel describes applying vocal effects (i.e., pitch-shifting) specifically within the context of a karaoke application. Steinwedel does not describe applying vocal effects outside of that context in any other application, teaching that voice signals not intended for the karaoke app are not subject to vocal effects. In any case, Steinwedel does not particularly describe providing a first microphone signal for ICC or voice assistant functionality.
Table 1
As shown in the table above, Steinwedel does not describe (1) identifying a wake word in an utterance in the first microphone signal and (2) providing the first microphone signal to an ICC or voice assistant functionality without the utterance being affected by voice effects or voice filters that are applied for karaoke.
Concerning differences (1) and (2), Steinwedel describes a computerized system that includes many applications, including a karaoke application used to record a user’s voice through a microphone and apply vocal effects, like pitch shifting. In the context of computer systems with multiple applications, one of ordinary skill would have understood from Steinwedel’s silence on the matter that Steinwedel does not apply effects outside of a karaoke application or apply effects in the karaoke application and forward that affected audio to all other applications. But Steinwedel does not specifically describe detecting a wake word and does not describe providing an utterance containing a wake word to an ICC or voice assistant freer of any vocal effects.
The Woo reference teaches and suggests configuring a voice assistant to operate even in the case a media recording application is running. Woo at ¶¶ 127, 128. This allows a user to stop recording using a wakeword. Id. For example, a user would simply say, “Hi Bixby, stop recording,” which will cause the voice assistant to stop audio recording. See id. This reasonably suggests modifying Steinwedel’s system and method to similarly include a voice assistant functionality and the ability to detect utterances containing wakewords, even while recording audio and video, to allow a user to easily stop recording and applying vocal effects (e.g., pitch shifting). See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique (wakeword detection and voice assistant functionality to control multimedia applications) to a device ready for improvement (Steinwedel’s phone and karaoke application) to yield predictable results (voice control over Steinwedel’s karaoke application)). One of ordinary skill would have understood that the natural consequence of doing so would lead to subsequent utterances containing a wake word will be routed to a voice assistant (e.g., Bixby as taught by Woo) without any sort of voice effects provided by Steinwedel’s karaoke application (not that one of ordinary skill would have understood Steinwedel’s karaoke application as being designed to apply effects to sounds not intended for the application in the first place). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first microphone signal is received by a first vehicle, and the second microphone signal is transmitted from the first vehicle to another vehicle.”
The Steinwedel reference does not describe receiving or transmitting microphone signals between vehicles as claimed. Steinwedel is drawn generally to the field of entertainment, particularly accreting karaoke-style vocal performances among multiple users using their mobile devices, like phones. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 50, 56, 61, 62, 71, 108. It is common knowledge that people use their phones in their cars for all sorts of purposes, including entertainment—this is so notorious as to be worthy of Official notice. See id. at ¶ 3 (describing the ubiquity of phones and their entrenchment in all areas of life). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have implemented Steinwedel’s system in a distributed manner with mobile phones located in vehicles. For example, a first user may record his vocals in his vehicle with his phone and a second user may record her vocals in her vehicle with her phone. A first microphone recorded by the first user in his vehicle is transmitted and received by the second user in her vehicle. A second microphone signal is recorded by the second user in her vehicle and transmitted to the first user in his vehicle or another user in a different vehicle. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second microphone signal is transmitted to a social media platform.”
Steinwedel describes transmitting recorded vocals to a content server 110 and to a target network, like a social media platform. Steinwedel at ¶ 70, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second microphone signal is recorded to a computer readable medium for later playback.”
Similarly, Steinwedel saves microphone signals locally and remotely for later playback through a social media service. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 70, 107. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first user sound is a voice sound.”
Steinwedel likewise describes recording user vocals 103. Steinwedel at ¶ 66, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second user sound is a percussion or rhythmic sound created by a user.”
Steinwedel describes recording user vocals 103. Steinwedel at ¶ 66, FIG.1. Vocals to songs are rhythmic sounds—namely, they are words sung to the rhythm of a song. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first microphone sound includes a first vocal track sung by a user, and the second microphone sound includes a second vocal track sung by the user, such that the iteratively-generated media content includes overdubbed vocals of the same user.”
Similarly, Steinwedel II teaches and suggests allowing non-linear access to an accreted performance so that a user may re-record, or overdub, his performance. Steinwedel II at ¶¶ 7, 60. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Steinwedel’s system and method to similarly allow for overdubbing vocals as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel, the Woo and the Steinwedel II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second microphone signal is overdubbed on the first microphone signal.”
Similarly, Steinwedel describes accreting, or mixing (111), a user’s current vocals 103 with background sounds, instrumental sounds and previously recorded vocals (AV2, AV3). Steinwedel at ¶¶ 66, 70, FIGs.1, 3A. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 is drawn to “a method for interactive and iterative media generation between vehicles.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Steinwedel reference.
Claim 10
The Steinwedel Reference
“10. A method for interactive and iterative media generation between vehicles, comprising:
The Steinwedel reference similarly describes a system and method for recording successive vocal performances and videos to accrete, or iteratively generate, a performance including multiple remote participants. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 56, 61, 71, 108.
Steinwedel does not describe its system and method in the context of vehicles. This difference is addressed below.
“receiving a first microphone signal from at least one microphone at a first vehicle, the first microphone signal including a first user sound and karaoke content;
The system and method further includes use of a microphone in mobile phone 101 to capture user vocals 103. Id. at ¶ 66, FIG.1. Device 101 includes a processor that receives the signal recorded by the device’s microphone. Id. at ¶¶ 66, 114, 115, FIG.6 (describing local processing of microphone signal). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that because Steinwedel’s device 101 is described as using a conventional phone microphone, the microphone signal would inherently contain all audio present in the environment, including both the user’s vocals as well as karaoke content due to leakage between the device’s speaker and the speakers of TV 101A.
“transmitting the first microphone signal to a second vehicle;
Steinwedel’s device 101 records the first microphone signal and combines it (111) with the existing background audio to create a new audio track. Id. at ¶¶ 70, 114, FIGs.1, 6. The new audio track is played so the user can hear it. Id. at ¶ 66, FIG.1. The new audio track is also transmitted to a second device associated with a second user. Id. at ¶ 69, FIG.1.
“receiving a second microphone signal from the second vehicle, the second microphone signal including the first user sound of the first microphone signal and a second user sound; and
A second user with a second device records a second microphone signal that includes new vocals by recording over the new audio track produced by the first user. Id. at ¶¶ 99–108, FIG.4. And, like before, the second microphone will include new vocals and leakage from the second user’s speakers, so the second microphone signal will include the second user’s vocals and the first user’s first vocals.
“transmitting the second microphone signal, including the first and second microphone signals and the karaoke content, as an instance of iteratively-generated media content.”
Device 101 transmits the second microphone signal to a server for further processing and distribution. Id. at ¶ 70.
“applying one or more audio effects to the first microphone signal for playback by the loudspeakers;
Steinwedel applies vocal effects, like pitch shifting, to recorded voice. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 6, 54, 76.
“identifying, in the first microphone signal, an utterance of a wake word; and
Steinwedel’s system is generally drawn to mobile smart phones, which typically include some form of voice assistant that detects a wake word.
Steinwedel, however, does not expressly describe a voice assistant or describe identifying a wake word in a first microphone signal.
“providing the first microphone signal for in car communications (ICC) and/or voice assistant functionality without the utterance being affected by voice effects or voice filters that are applied for karaoke.”
Steinwedel describes applying vocal effects (i.e., pitch-shifting) specifically within the context of a karaoke application. Steinwedel does not describe applying vocal effects outside of that context in any other application, teaching that voice signals not intended for the karaoke app are not subject to vocal effects. In any case, Steinwedel does not particularly describe providing a first microphone signal for ICC or voice assistant functionality.
Table 2
As shown in the table above, Steinwedel does not describe (1) receiving or transmitting microphone signals between vehicles as claimed and (2) identifying a wake word in an utterance in the first microphone signal and (3) providing the first microphone signal to an ICC or voice assistant functionality without the utterance being affected by voice effects or voice filters that are applied for karaoke.
Concerning difference (1), Steinwedel is drawn generally to the field of entertainment, particularly accreting karaoke-style vocal performances among multiple users using their mobile devices, like phones. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 50, 56, 61, 62, 71, 108. It is common knowledge that people use their phones in their cars for all sorts of purposes, including entertainment—this is so notorious as to be worthy of Official notice. See id. at ¶ 3 (describing the ubiquity of phones and their entrenchment in all areas of life). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have implemented Steinwedel’s system in a distributed manner with mobile phones located in vehicles. For example, a first user may record his vocals in his vehicle with his phone and a second user may record her vocals in her vehicle with her phone. A first microphone recorded by the first user in his vehicle is transmitted and received by the second user in her vehicle. A second microphone signal is recorded by the second user in her vehicle and transmitted to the first user in his vehicle or another user in a different vehicle.
Concerning differences (2) and (3), Steinwedel describes a computerized system that includes many applications, including a karaoke application used to record a user’s voice through a microphone and apply vocal effects, like pitch shifting. In the context of computer systems with multiple applications, one of ordinary skill would have understood from Steinwedel’s silence on the matter that Steinwedel does not apply effects outside of a karaoke application or apply effects in the karaoke application and forward that affected audio to all other applications. But Steinwedel does not specifically describe detecting a wake word and does not describe providing an utterance containing a wake word to an ICC or voice assistant freer of any vocal effects.
The Woo reference teaches and suggests configuring a voice assistant to operate even in the case a media recording application is running. Woo at ¶¶ 127, 128. This allows a user to stop recording using a wakeword. Id. For example, a user would simply say, “Hi Bixby, stop recording,” which will cause the voice assistant to stop audio recording. See id. This reasonably suggests modifying Steinwedel’s system and method to similarly detect wakewords while recording audio and video to allow a user to easily stop recording and applying vocal effects (e.g., pitch shifting). See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique (wakeword detection to control multimedia applications) to a device ready for improvement (Steinwedel’s phone and karaoke application) to yield predictable results (voice control over Steinwedel’s karaoke application)). One of ordinary skill would have understood that the natural consequence of doing so would lead to subsequent utterances containing a wake word will be routed to a voice assistant (e.g., Bixby as taught by Woo) without any sort of voice effects provided by Steinwedel’s karaoke application (not that one of ordinary skill would have understood Steinwedel’s karaoke application as being designed to apply effects to sounds not intended for the application in the first place). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second microphone signal is recorded to a computer readable medium for later playback.”
Similarly, Steinwedel saves microphone signals locally and remotely for later playback through a social media service. Steinwedel at ¶¶ 70, 107. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first user sound is a voice sound from an occupant of the first vehicle.”
Steinwedel likewise describes recording user vocals 103 from multiple users. Steinwedel at ¶ 66, FIG.1. As shown in the rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, that would obviously include voices recorded in different vehicles. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second user sound is a percussion or rhythmic sound created by an occupant of the second vehicle.”
Steinwedel describes recording user vocals 103. Steinwedel at ¶ 66, FIG.1. Vocals to songs are rhythmic sounds—namely, they are words sung to the rhythm of a song. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first microphone sound includes a first vocal track sung by a user, and the second microphone sound includes a second vocal track sung by the user, such that the iteratively-generated media content includes overdubbed vocals of the same user.”
Similarly, Steinwedel II teaches and suggests allowing non-linear access to an accreted performance so that a user may re-record, or overdub, his performance. Steinwedel II at ¶¶ 7, 60. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Steinwedel’s system and method to similarly allow for overdubbing vocals as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel, the Woo and the Steinwedel II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second user sound is another voice sound from an occupant within the second vehicle.”
Steinwedel likewise describes recording user vocals 103 from multiple users. Steinwedel at ¶ 66, FIG.1. As shown in the rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, that would obviously include voices recorded in different vehicles. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the second microphone signal is overdubbed on the first microphone signal.”
Similarly, Steinwedel describes accreting, or mixing (111), a user’s current vocals 103 with background sounds, instrumental sounds and previously recorded vocals (AV2, AV3). Steinwedel at ¶¶ 66, 70, FIGs.1, 3A. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Steinwedel and the Woo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 is drawn to “a system for sound signal processing in a vehicle multimedia system.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Hu reference.
Claim 17
The Hu Reference
“17. A system for sound signal processing in a vehicle multimedia system, comprising:
Hu similarly describes a vehicle system and vehicle multimedia system (IHU and AHU) capable of processing sound signals. Hu at ¶¶ 10–19, 31.
“loudspeakers configured to play back audio signals into an environment, the audio signals including karaoke content;
Hu’s vehicle system includes an integrated head unit (IHU) and an audio head unit (AHU) that is configured to provide a voice, or audible feedback, to people inside the vehicle. Id. at ¶¶ 54–56. This teaches that Hu’s vehicle includes loudspeakers to create the audible feedback. The loudspeakers, by definition, are devices designed to play back audio signals.
Hu does not describe playing karaoke content through the loudspeakers attached to the AHU. However, this claim does not tie the content of the audio signals to the function of the loudspeakers or any other aspect of the claimed system in any way. The type of content included in the audio signals only presents a significance to the mind of a human hearing the content. It is thus non-functional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the Hu reference. See MPEP § 2111.05.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to play any known type of content as an arbitrary design choice (user choice) via Hu’s loudspeakers since they are part of an audio head unit for a vehicle, which is an art recognized device for playing all types of audio in a vehicle.
“at least one microphone configured to receive microphone signals indicative of sound in the environment;
Hu’s system includes a microphone to receive the voice of a person in a vehicle. Hu at ¶ 31.
“at least one vehicle opening having a powered closure mechanism; and
Hu’s vehicle includes windows positioned near at least four seating positions in the vehicle. Id. at ¶ 38. Each window includes a powered closure mechanism since Hu teaches automatically controlling the windows via commands issued by a body control module (BCM) in response to voice commands detected by an audio head unit/integrated head unit (IHU). Id. at ¶¶ 8, 32, 38, 52.
“a processor programed to receive a microphone signal from the at least one microphone, and
“in response to a determination that the microphone signal includes occupant voice content, instruct the powered closure mechanism to move the at least one vehicle opening to a closed position.”
Hu’s vehicle includes an integrated head unit (IHU) and audio head unit (AHU) (i.e., processors) that monitor signals from a microphone to detect voice commands concerning the states of the windows. Id. at ¶¶ 10–14, 27, 38, 52. When Hu’s AHU detects a voice command from a user, the AHU/IHU sends a command to the BCM, which lowers/raises the windows in response. Id.
Table 3
For the foregoing reasons, the Hu reference anticipates, or makes obvious, all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein the processor is programmed to determine the at least one vehicle opening based on a location of an occupant using the karaoke application and wherein the at least one vehicle opening is adjacent to the occupant using the karaoke application.”
The claim requires determining a vehicle opening based on a location of an occupant using “the” karaoke application. The term “the karaoke application” lacks antecedent basis, and is interpreted as a reference to “a karaoke application”. Further, the plain language of the claim does not require any type of determination as to whether an occupant is using a karaoke application or not. Thus, the claim covers two situations: the claim covers determining a location of an occupant who happens to be using a karaoke application and determining a location of an occupant who happens to not be using a karaoke application. Nothing in the language of the claim ties the occupant’s status to the functioning of the processor. The limited import of the claim’s plain language is that the processor does not exclude determining the location of an occupant who is using a karaoke application.
Hu describes an AHU (processor) that locates the position of an occupant who uttered a voice command to open/close windows. Hu at ¶¶ 10–14, 27, 38, 52. Hu’s AHU then responsively opens/closes a corresponding window. Id. For example, a driver may lower his window or all windows while a passenger may only lower his window. Id. Hu does not describe any type of karaoke application. This silence teaches that Hu’s processor (IHU/AHU) will locate occupants whether they are using a karaoke application or not using a karaoke application. For the foregoing reasons, the Hu reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“further comprising at least one microphone configured to receive microphone signals indicative of sound in the environment,
“wherein the processor is further programmed to receive a microphone signal from the at least one microphone, and
“in response to a determination that the microphone signal includes occupant voice content, instruct the powered closure mechanism to move the at least one vehicle opening to the closed position.”
The Hu reference likewise describes providing multiple microphones in its vehicle to pickup sounds from different occupant positions. Hu at ¶¶ 10–19, 31. Using this arrangement of microphones, Hu’s AHU/IHU localizes an audio source and detects window-related voice commands from particular vehicle occupants in order to control windows tied to an occupant’s position. Id. For example, a driver may voice control all windows to open/close while a passenger may voice control only his window to open/close. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Hu reference anticipates, or makes obvious, all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–17 and 19 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Issues Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite because the term “the karaoke application” lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the term is interpreted as a reference to “a karaoke application”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to for reciting allowable subject matter while depending on rejected base claims. The claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of their base claim and any and all intervening claims.
Claim 20 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“where the processor is further programed to, in response to a determination that [a] karaoke application is inactive, instruct the closure mechanism to move the at least one vehicle opening to an open position.”
There is no fair teaching or suggestion in the cited prior art to control the opening of a window in connection with whether a karaoke application is inactive. For the foregoing reasons, claim 20 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because it recites “a determination that karaoke application is inactive”. This appears to be a minor grammatical error. The Examiner suggests replacing the language with “a determination that a karaoke application is inactive”. Appropriate correction is required. No new matter may be entered.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (01 July 2026) has substantively amended claims 1–16. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at presents comments pertaining to the rejections presented in the Non-Final Rejection (05 January 2026). Those comments are relevant to the rejections presented herein.
Concerning claims 1 and 10, Applicant comments that the Woo reference does not describe the claimed application of one or more audio effects to the first microphone signal for playback by loudspeakers, identifying in the first microphone signal an utterance of a wake word and providing the first microphone signal for ICC and/or voice assistant functionality without the utterance being affected by voice effects or voice filters that are applied for karaoke. (Reply at 7). Applicant supports this view by noting that Woo is not related to karaoke and does not apply any audio effects. (Reply at 7). While true, the rejection is based on the combination of Steinwedel and Woo. It is the Steinwedel reference that describes a base reference related to karaoke and the application of audio effects to vocals recorded by a first microphone.
Applicant further comments that Woo does not clearly describe anything pertaining to providing a first microphone signal in ICC or voice assistant functionality without karaoke vocal effects. (Reply at 7). The rejection explains that Woo teaches wake word detection and its attendant voice assistant functions (e.g., Bixby). Woo teaches that by detecting a wake word to control a multimedia application (e.g., voice recording), a user may stop the application through his voice. The rejection extends this idea to Steinwedel’s smart phone so that the smart phone can detect a wake word and to provide a voice assistant functionality. The net result of this modification is that when a user utters a wake word to stop a specific application, such as Steinwedel’s karaoke application, the application will stop and cease its functions (i.e., applying vocal effects). Thus, subsequent wake word utterances and voice commands intended for a voice assistant will certainly not be subjected to any of Steinwedel’s vocal effects.
Concerning claim 17, Applicant makes comments pertaining to the rejection presented in the previous Office action. Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights