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
Anticipation
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3–6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0122573 (effectively filed 03 December 2019) (“Steinwedel”).
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
“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.
Table 1
For the foregoing reasons, the Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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.
Claims 2 and 10–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steinwedel.
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”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Steinwedel and US Patent Application Publication 2022/0286757 (published 08 September 2022) (“Woo”).
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0208352 (published 04 July 2019) (“Trestain”); US Patent Application Publication 2018/0194359 (published 12 July 2018) (“Morimoto”); Woo and Steinwedel.
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 Steinwedel reference 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 and the Steinwedel II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the processor is further programmed to:
“apply one or more audio effects to the first microphone signal for playback by the loudspeakers;
“identify, in the first microphone signal, an utterance of a wake word; and
“provide 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 applies vocal effects, like pitch shifting, to recorded voice. Steinwedel at ¶ 6. Steinwedel does not describe ceasing the application of effects, like pitch correction, in the case a wakeword is detected. However, 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.” See id. This reasonably suggests modifying Steinwedel’s system and method to similarly detect wakewords while recording audio and video and to stop recording and applying vocal effects so that any subsequent voice is not filtered when used in voice assistant functions. 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.
Table 2
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 Steinwedel reference 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 Steinwedel reference 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Steinwedel reference anticipates 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 Trestain reference.
Claim 17
The Trestain Reference
“17. A system for sound signal processing in a vehicle multimedia system, comprising:
Trestain describes a corresponding vehicular multimedia system and sound signal processing. Trestain at ¶¶ 15–17, FIG.1.
“loudspeakers configured to play back audio signals into an environment, the audio signals including karaoke content;
Trestain’s system includes speakers for reproducing audio signals. Id. at ¶ 17, FIG.1.
While Trestain does not characterize the audio as karaoke content, that is non-functional descriptive material in this context since the content of the audio is not used by any system element to perform any particular function of the claimed system. See MPEP § 2111.05. Nevertheless, the Steinwedel reference, discussed in the rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of reproducing karaoke content in a mobile environment.
“at least one microphone configured to receive microphone signals indicative of sound in the environment;
Trestain’s system includes a microphone to record signals in the vehicle. Trestain at ¶ 16, FIG.1.
“at least one vehicle opening having a powered closure mechanism; and
Trestain’s system includes powered windows. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 28.
“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.”
When the windows are open, Trestain’s system does not record audio. Id. The reference does not describe the inverse of closing windows when voice is detected.
Table 3
As shown in the table above, Trestain describes disabling recording when a window is open. The Morimoto reference further teaches and suggests a modification that will prevent user frustration by taking actions that a user is likely to take. Morimoto at ¶¶ 6–13, 37. If a user requests to perform an action but the system cannot, the system infers the user’s intent and suggests, and automatically, performs actions to configure the system to carry out the user’s intent, including opening/closing windows. Id. For example, Read in light of Trestain, this reasonably suggests modifying Trestain’s system to detect a user’s request to record audio when windows are open—for example, a user may invoke a voice command, like the voice commands described by the Woo reference (discussed in the rejection of claim 9), to launch a karaoke application, like the karaoke application described by Steinwedel (discussed in the rejection of claim 1) and installed on Trestain’s car computer. If the windows are open, which would normally prevent recording audio in Trestain’s system, Morimoto suggests automatically closing the windows so that the vehicle would be able to record audio. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Trestain, the Morimoto, the Woo and the Steinwedel references makes obvious 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.”
This example is addressed in the obviousness rejection of claim 17, incorporated herein. For example, the references suggest detecting when a user uses a voice command to launch a karaoke application and correspondingly close a vehicle’s windows to allow for recording karaoke content. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Trestain, the Morimoto, the Woo and the Steinwedel references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“where the processor is further programed to, in response to a determination that karaoke application is inactive, instruct the closure mechanism to move the at least one vehicle opening to an open position.”
The Morimoto reference teaches and suggests inferring a user’s intent based on a user’s input, a vehicle’s current condition and a required condition and recommending changes to the current condition in order to allow the user’s intent to be fulfilled. The rejection of claim 9, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of using voice commands to control a recording application, like Steinwedel’s karaoke application. For example, a user may instruct a voice assistant to terminate recording and end the karaoke application. Read in light of Morimoto, this likely usage scenario further suggests causing the vehicle to automatically return to its previous state with windows open. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Trestain, the Morimoto, the Woo and the Steinwedel references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–17, 19 and 20 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
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.”
This limitation is not fairly taught by the combination of references. None of the cited references describe, teach or suggest the idea of determining which vehicle opening to control based on a location of an occupant. For the foregoing reasons, claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of its base claim and any and all intervening claims. Currently, claim 18 is objected to for reciting allowable subject matter while depending on a rejected base claim.
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
1/1/2026