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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 11 June 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the office action 14 May 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the office action 14 May 2026 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Lines 8, 11, 15 (similarly claims 16 and 20): “a result” should read –the result—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 16 and 20), the recited limitation “sound generated by the body as result of movement of a first surface of the body relative to a fluid” (in Lines 4, 8-9, 11-12 and 15) and further recites “features of an acoustic signature of a first plurality of acoustic signatures, wherein each acoustic signature of the first plurality of acoustic signatures is an acoustic signature of the body and includes acoustic characteristics generated by the body”(in Lines 17-20) is/are indefinite. The scope and meaning of the recited terms “sound generated by the body” and “acoustic signature of the body” is/are unclear and confusing to the Examiner. The claim does not reasonable identify what physical portion/phenomenon of the body generates the recited sound. In particular, it is unclear whether “sound generated by the body” refers to (a) sound directed generated by structural vibration or deformation of the vehicle body, or (b) sound generated by a particular surface region of the body interacting with a fluid; or (c) airflow generated acoustic waves adjacent to the body or a particular surface, or (d) sound transmitted through the body from another source (e.g., engine?), or (e) another acoustic phenomenon associated with operation of the vehicle; and the claim further recites that the sound as a result of movement of a first surface of the body relative to a fluid, but the claim does not clarify whether the recited movement refers to (i) movement of the entire vehicle through the fluid, (ii) movement/vibration/deformation of a/the particular surface relative to the remainder of the body, (iii) aerodynamic excitation of the surface, or something else.
Further, the recited limitation “features of an acoustic signature of the first plurality of acoustic signatures…wherein each acoustic signature is an acoustic signature of the body and includes acoustic characteristics generated by the body” is confusing and unclear because the claim does not provide a reasonably clear definition of what constitutes “acoustic signature of the body” or what acoustic characteristics are included within such a signature. It is further unclear whether the acoustic signatures corresponds to a particular surface region, the vehicle body as a whole, structural vibrations, engine noises, other vehicle generated noises or something else. Examiner notes that the specification ([0024-0033, 0045,0047-0050]) describes embodiments in which individual microphones are associated with corresponding surfaces of the vehicle and receive acoustic signals generated by the respective surfaces (e.g., the specification described that each microphone receives sound generated by movement of a surface associated with that microphone relative to the fluid; sound generated by one surface and received by its associated microphone may differ from sound generated by another surface and received by another microphone; and acoustic signatures correspond to surfaces associated with the microphone that provide the audio signals; in order determine side slip or angle of attack based on the speed). However, the claim recites “an acoustic signature of the body” and “”acoustic characteristics generated by the body” without identifying whether the claimed acoustic signature corresponds to (1) a particular surface region of the body associated with the microphone, (2) the body as a whole, (3) aerodynamic acoustic characteristics produced at a particular surface of the body or (4) other acoustic characteristics associated with the vehicle. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claimed comparison is made between features of an audio signal generated by a particular surface and a corresponding surface specific acoustic signature as described in the specification, or between features of an audio signal and a generalized acoustic signatures of the entire vehicle body. The claim does not identify the recited “features” of the audio signal and acoustic signatures, or the relationship between those features used for comparison. Accordingly, this/these claim limitation(s) render(s) the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 16 and 20), the recited limitation “features of an acoustic signature of a first plurality of acoustic signatures, wherein each acoustic signature of the first plurality of acoustic signatures is an acoustic signature of the body and includes acoustic characteristics generated by the body”(in Lines 17-20) is indefinite. The repeated recitation of “acoustic signature” does not clearly define the relationship between the acoustic signature being used for comparison and the plurality of acoustic signatures: the claim first recites “an acoustic signature of a first plurality of acoustic signatures” and subsequently recites that “each acoustic signature of the first plurality of acoustic signatures is an acoustic signature of the body”, it is unclear whether the claimed acoustic signature used for comparison is a particular selected acoustic signature from the plurality, an arbitrary acoustic signature from the plurality or a generalized acoustic signature representing the body, or does applicant intend to introduce a new and different acoustic signature different than what was already recited. Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 first paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claim 1 (Similarly Claims 16 and 20), the combination of prior arts Jaime, Moeller, Karnofski, Sly and Middleton taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior art of records fail to teach or render obvious of (in particular, the underlined limitation):
a first microphone positioned in an interior of the body and configured to receive sound generated by the body as a result of movement of a first surface of the body relative to a fluid; and
one or more processors coupled to the first microphone, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive an audio signal corresponding to the sound generated by the body as a result of the movement of the first surface of the body relative to the fluid received by the first microphone;
analyze the audio signal, including the sound generated by the body as a result of the movement of the first surface of the body relative to the fluid, to determine a first speed associated with the vehicle based on a comparison of features of the audio signal corresponding to the sound generated by the body as a result of the movement of the first surface of the body relative to the fluid to features of an acoustic signature of a first plurality of acoustic signatures, wherein each acoustic signature of the first plurality of acoustic signatures is an acoustic signature of the body and includes acoustic characteristics generated by the body; and
based at least on the first speed, cause performance of one or more vehicle management operations.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 would be allowable because they are dependent upon independent claims 1, 16 and 20.
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 DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights