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
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 1–8, 10–16, 18–20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2025/0362865 (filed 24 May 2024) (“Nash”) and US 2017/0276764 (published 28 September 2017) (“Vilermo”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nash; Vilermo and US 2023/0286464 (published 14 September 2023) (“Asai”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a system.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Nash reference.
Claim 1
The Nash Reference
“1. A system comprising:
The Nash reference similarly describes an audio arbitration system 100 and method that adjusts audio playback of different types of audio based on the changing state of a vehicle 102. Nash at Abs., ¶¶ 6, 7, FIG.4.
“one or more processors; and
“one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
Nash’s system includes a computer 104 that includes a processor and memory with instructions that are executed by the processor to control the output of audio by audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 31, 33, FIG.1.
“determining a first state of a vehicle…
“determining that the vehicle has changed from the first state to a second state;
In order to control audio output by audio devices 110, Nash’s computer 104 monitors sensors 106 to determine the state of vehicle 102. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 36, 43, 74, 79–82. The vehicle’s state is monitored over time to detect changes from a first state to a second state. See id. For example, Nash detects changes in the vehicle’s motion state. Id.
“receiving first audio data for playback by the vehicle, the first audio data having a first audio priority;
“receiving second audio data for playback by the vehicle, the second audio data having a second audio priority…
Likewise, Nash’s computer 104 receives first and second content data 300, 302, including visual and audio data. Id. at ¶¶ 37–41, 52. The first content data 300 may correspond to content reproduced by one of displays 108-1 and 108-2 and audio devices 110. Id. Computer 104 assigns a priority to each audio data. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 59.
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio priority, the second audio priority, and that the vehicle has changed state, to modify a playback volume of the first audio data relative to the second audio data to create a modified playback volume; [[and]]
Based on the vehicle’s state, Nash’s computer 104 adjusts the volume of audio associated with first and second content data 300, 302. Id. at ¶¶ 59–72, FIG.4. For example, if a vehicle is in a first state (e.g., not moving) musical content is prioritized and amplified more than other audio. However, the music may be muted to give priority to a warning when the vehicle is in a second state (e.g., moving abnormally. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83.
“determining that the first audio data or the second audio data is intended for a specific user of the vehicle;
“determining, using a sensor of the vehicle, a first location of the specific user in relation to the vehicle…
“determining, using the sensor, that the specific user has changed location from the first location to a second location; and
Nash similarly identifies a user for whom specific audio is intended and uses a camera to locate the user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43.
Nash, however, does not use the sensor to detect when the user moves from a first location to a second location.
“causing the first audio data or the second audio data to be played by the vehicle based at least in part on the modified playback volume and on the second location.”
Similarly, Nash’s computer 104 outputs volume-modulated audio using audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83. Nash further outputs audio to an audio device 110 associated with a user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43. For example, a user is identified by a camera after making a content selection. Id. Nash’s system then outputs through an appropriate device 110 associated with that user. Id.
Nash, however, does not cause audio to be output based on a determined second location after detecting that a user has moved from a first location to a second location.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Nash reference describes a system that corresponds closely to the claimed system. The Nash reference does not anticipate the claimed invention, however, because it does not describe detecting when a specific user moves from a first location to a second location and using the second location to cause the output of first/second audio.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Nash reference are such that the invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Similarly, Nash’s computer 104 outputs volume-modulated audio using audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83. Nash further outputs audio to an audio device 110 associated with a user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43. For example, a user is identified by a camera after making a content selection. Id. Nash’s system then outputs through an appropriate device 110 associated with that user. Id. Nash, however, does not describe making the association as a user moves from a first location to a second location.
The Vilermo reference, however, teaches a vehicle system that includes sensors, such as RF sensors, to detect the location of each passenger inside a vehicle. Vilermo at Abs., ¶¶ 34–49, FIGs.1–3. Audio is routed to each passenger based on his known position. Id. at ¶¶ 56, 57, 94, FIGs.4, 5 (step 4.6, 5.7–5.9). If passengers change position during a trip, the system updates its position map to reflect the new passenger positions. Id. at ¶¶ 92–97. Audio is then re-routed based on the updated map so that audio effectively follows passengers as they move throughout the vehicle’s interior. Id. This prevents audio from being routed to the wrong place as passengers move around in a vehicle. Id.
Read in light of Nash’s disclosure concerning the routing of audio to user’s based on their known position, Vilermo reasonably suggests modifying Nash’s approach. In particular, Vilermo teaches and suggests tracking changes in passenger position from a first location to a second location in order to update the audio routing of audio. In this way, the audio will be routed accurately despite the user’s having moved from their initially determined positions. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first state is one or more states of a set of states comprising a driving state, a parked state, an idling state, a stopped state, a starting state, an ingress state, an egress state, an approaching destination state, a takeoff state, a seatbelt unfastened state, a reversing state, a proximal to other vehicles state, a proximal to pedestrians state, a proximal to emergency vehicles state, and the second state is one or more different states, or one more fewer states, of the set of states than the first state.”
Similarly, the Nash reference describes detecting the state of a vehicle and transitions from a first state to a second state including normal (e.g., driving) movement, abnormal movement (e.g., lane violations) and parking. Nash at ¶¶ 79–83. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the instructions further cause the system to perform actions comprising:
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio data, a first audio category indicating a category of the first audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio data, a second audio category indicating a type of the second audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio category, the first audio priority; and
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio category, the second audio priority.”
The Nash reference similarly determines and uses the category of audio content 300, 302 to determine audio priorities. Nash at ¶¶ 59, 64–74. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the instructions further cause the system to perform actions comprising:
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio data, a first semantic content indicating information communicated in the first audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio data, a second semantic content indicating information communicated [[f]] in the second audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the first content type, the first audio priority; and
“determining, based at least in part on the second content type, the second audio priority.”
The Nash reference similarly determines and uses the category of audio content 300, 302 to determine audio priorities. Nash at ¶¶ 59, 64–74. The categories include sub-categories recognized through audio analysis, or speech analysis. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein: one of the first location or the second location is inside the vehicle; and
“the other of the first location or the second location is outside the vehicle.”
The combination of Nash and Vilermo set forth in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, contemplates determining changes in a passenger’s position within a vehicle. The combination does not describe detecting when a user moves from outside a vehicle to inside a vehicle or vice versa. However, the Asai reference teaches an alternative sensing scheme for detecting the position of users entering a vehicle. Rather than merely detecting users, Asai configures its system to detect users as they approach a vehicle, open a door and close the door to determine which door they enter and where they end up sitting inside the vehicle. Asai at ¶ 4. Asai uses the sensor information to control seats and other user settings. Id. at ¶ 21. Read together with Nash and Vilermo, Asai’s user-detection mechanism reasonably suggests using it as an alternative mechanism for detecting when a user enters a vehicle in order to determine their position in the vehicle and using that information to route information according to the teachings of Nash and Vilermo. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash, the Vilermo and the Asai references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein causing the first audio data or the second audio data to be played based at least in part on the second location comprises controlling a playback direction of the first audio data or the second audio data towards the second location.”
Similarly, the combination of Nash and Vilermo set forth in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, includes routing audio to audio devices (e.g., speakers) based on a passenger’s determined second location to provide audio in the proximity of the passenger. Nash at ¶¶ 42, 54, 55; Vilermo at ¶¶ 95–97. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 is drawn to “a method.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Nash reference.
Claim 5
The Nash Reference
“5. A method comprising:
The Nash reference similarly describes an audio arbitration system 100 and method that adjusts audio playback of different types of audio based on the changing state of a vehicle 102. Nash at Abs., ¶¶ 6, 7, FIG.4.
“determining first vehicle data;
In order to control audio output by audio devices 110, Nash’s computer 104 monitors sensors 106 to determine the state of vehicle 102. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 36, 43, 74, 79–82. The vehicle’s state is monitored over time to detect changes from a first state to a second state. See id. For example, Nash detects changes in the vehicle’s motion state. Id.
“obtaining first audio data;
“obtaining second audio data;
Likewise, Nash’s computer 104 receives first and second content data 300, 302, including visual and audio data. Id. at ¶¶ 37–41, 52. The first content data 300 may correspond to content reproduced by one of displays 108-1 and 108-2 and audio devices 110. Id. Computer 104 assigns a priority to each audio data. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 59.
“determining, based at least in part on the first vehicle data, a first audio priority associated with the first audio data;
“determining a second audio priority associated with the second audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on data the first audio priority and the second audio priority, a relative volume of the first audio data to the second audio; [[and]]
Based on the vehicle’s state, Nash’s computer 104 adjusts the volume of audio associated with first and second content data 300, 302. Id. at ¶¶ 59–72, FIG.4. For example, if a vehicle is in a first state (e.g., not moving) musical content is prioritized and amplified more than other audio. However, the music may be muted to give priority to a warning when the vehicle is in a second state (e.g., moving abnormally. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83.
“determining that the first audio data or the second audio data is intended for a specific user of the vehicle;
“determining, using a change in location of the specific user; and
Nash similarly identifies a user for whom specific audio is intended and uses a camera to locate the user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43.
Nash, however, does not use the sensor to detect when the user moves from a first location to a second location.
“causing the vehicle to play the first audio data or the second audio data based at least in part on [[at]] the relative volume and the change in location
Similarly, Nash’s computer 104 outputs volume-modulated audio using audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83. Nash further outputs audio to an audio device 110 associated with a user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43. For example, a user is identified by a camera after making a content selection. Id. Nash’s system then outputs through an appropriate device 110 associated with that user. Id.
Nash, however, does not cause audio to be output based on a determined second location after detecting that a user has moved from a first location to a second location.
Table 2
The table above shows that the Nash reference describes a method that corresponds closely to the claimed method. The Nash reference does not anticipate the claimed invention, however, because it does not describe detecting a change in a specific user’s position and using the change in location to cause the output of first/second audio.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Nash reference are such that the invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Similarly, Nash’s computer 104 outputs volume-modulated audio using audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83. Nash further outputs audio to an audio device 110 associated with a user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43. For example, a user is identified by a camera after making a content selection. Id. Nash’s system then outputs through an appropriate device 110 associated with that user. Id. Nash, however, does not describe making the association as a user moves from a first location to a second location.
The Vilermo reference, however, teaches a vehicle system that includes sensors, such as RF sensors, to detect the location of each passenger inside a vehicle. Vilermo at Abs., ¶¶ 34–49, FIGs.1–3. Audio is routed to each passenger based on his known position. Id. at ¶¶ 56, 57, 94, FIGs.4, 5 (step 4.6, 5.7–5.9). If passengers change position during a trip, the system updates its position map to reflect the new passenger positions. Id. at ¶¶ 92–97. Audio is then re-routed based on the updated map so that audio effectively follows passengers as they move throughout the vehicle’s interior. Id. This prevents audio from being routed to the wrong place as passengers move around in a vehicle. Id.
Read in light of Nash’s disclosure concerning the routing of audio to user’s based on their known position, Vilermo reasonably suggests modifying Nash’s approach. In particular, Vilermo teaches and suggests tracking changes in passenger position from a first location to a second location in order to update the audio routing of audio. In this way, the audio will be routed accurately despite the user’s having moved from their initially determined positions. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio data, a first audio category associated with the first audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio data, a second audio category associated with the second audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio category, the first audio priority; and
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio category, the second audio priority.”
The Nash reference similarly determines and uses the category of audio content 300, 302 to determine audio priorities. Nash at ¶¶ 59, 64–74. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio data, a first semantic content indicating information communicated in the first audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio data, a second semantic content indicating information communicated in the second audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the first semantic content, the first audio priority; and
“determining, based at least in part on the second semantic content, the second audio priority.”
The Nash reference similarly determines and uses the category of audio content 300, 302 to determine audio priorities. Nash at ¶¶ 59, 64–74. The categories include sub-categories recognized through audio analysis, or speech analysis. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“wherein causing the vehicle to play the first audio data or the second audio data
“
“determining, for a plurality of speakers of the vehicle and based at least in part on the relative volume, a plurality of gains; and
“causing the plurality of speakers to emit the first and second audio data based at least in part on the plurality of gains.”
Audio priorities are set for different zones in a vehicle, such that the priority for each piece of content 300, 302 for each audio device 110 (e.g., speakers in different cabin locations) is based on the user’s location (i.e., determined by a camera) relative to the audio devices. Nash at ¶¶ 36, 42–44, 55, 69. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first vehicle data comprises a first state of the vehicle.”
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first state is one or more states of a set of states comprising a driving state, a parked state, an idling state, a stopped state, a starting state, an ingress state, an egress state, an approaching destination state, a takeoff state, a reversing state, a proximal to other vehicles state, a proximal to pedestrians state, a proximal to emergency vehicles state.”
Claim 12 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“determining that the vehicle has changed from the first state to a second state wherein the second state is different from the first state; and
“determining, based at least in part on the second state of the vehicle, the first audio priority, whereby the relative volume of the first audio data to the second audio is different at the second vehicle state than at the first vehicle state.”
Claims 10–12 are treated together because they commonly relate to detecting a vehicle state and changes in vehicle state. Similarly, the Nash reference describes adjusting priorities assigned to content 300 and 302 by detecting the state of a vehicle and transitions from a first state to a second state including normal (e.g., driving) movement, abnormal movement (e.g., lane violations) and parking. Nash at ¶¶ 79–83. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 13 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“determining the first audio priority associated with the first audio data, based at least in part on one or more of:
“a presence of a specific user of the vehicle, or
“a location of the specific user in relation to the vehicle.”
Audio priorities are set for different zones in a vehicle, such that the priority for each piece of content 300, 302 is based on the presence of a user in a vehicle and the user’s location. Nash at ¶¶ 42–44, 69. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“determining, using a sensor of the vehicle, an ambient sound level proximate the vehicle; and
“controlling, based at least in part on the ambient sound level, a playback volume for the first audio data or the second audio data.”
Similarly, Nash describes using a microphone sensor 106 to detect speech near vehicle 102. Nash at ¶ 74. If the speech is identified as a desired conversation, Nash then adjusts content 300, 302 accordingly to prevent the content audio from interfering with the conversation. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“determining, based at least in part on at least in part of the higher audio priority of the first and second audio priorities, to one or more of attenuate or mute a playback volume of the audio data associated with lower audio priority.”
Nash similarly describes lowering the volume or muting lower priority audio associated with content 300, 302. Nash at ¶¶ 57, 63, 72, 74, 83, 86, 87, 88. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 is drawn to “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed media and the Nash reference.
Claim 16
The Nash Reference
“16. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
The Nash reference similarly describes an audio arbitration system 100 and method that adjusts audio playback of different types of audio based on the changing state of a vehicle 102. Nash at Abs., ¶¶ 6, 7, FIG.4. Nash’s system includes a computer 104 that includes a processor and memory with instructions that are executed by the processor to control the output of audio by audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 31, 33, FIG.1.
Nash’s computer 104 receives first and second content data 300, 302, including visual and audio data. Id. at ¶¶ 37–41, 52. The first content data 300 may correspond to content reproduced by one of displays 108-1 and 108-2 and audio devices 110. Id. Computer 104 assigns a priority to each audio data. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 59.
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio data, a first audio category associated with the first audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio data, a second audio category associated with the second audio data;
“determining, based at least in part on the first audio category, the first audio priority; [[and]]
“determining, based at least in part on the second audio category, the second audio priority.”
The Nash reference similarly determines and uses the category of audio content 300, 302 to determine audio priorities. Id. at ¶¶ 59, 64–74. The categories include sub-categories recognized through audio analysis, or speech analysis. Id.
“determining that the first audio data or the second audio data is intended for a specific user of the vehicle;
“determining a change in location of the specific user; and
Nash similarly identifies a user for whom specific audio is intended and uses a camera to locate the user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43.
Nash, however, does not use the sensor to detect when the user moves from a first location to a second location.
“causing the vehicle to play one or more of the first audio data or the second audio data based at least in part on the change in location and one or more of the first audio priority or the second audio priority.”
Similarly, Nash’s computer 104 outputs volume-modulated audio using audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83. Nash further outputs audio to an audio device 110 associated with a user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43. For example, a user is identified by a camera after making a content selection. Id. Nash’s system then outputs through an appropriate device 110 associated with that user. Id.
Nash, however, does not cause audio to be output based on a determined second location after detecting that a user has moved from a first location to a second location.
Table 3
The table above shows that the Nash reference describes a system that corresponds closely to the claimed media. The Nash reference does not anticipate the claimed invention, however, because it does not describe detecting when a specific user changes location and using the change in location to cause the output of first/second audio.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Nash reference are such that the invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Similarly, Nash’s computer 104 outputs volume-modulated audio using audio devices 110. Id. at ¶¶ 80–83. Nash further outputs audio to an audio device 110 associated with a user. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 43. For example, a user is identified by a camera after making a content selection. Id. Nash’s system then outputs through an appropriate device 110 associated with that user. Id. Nash, however, does not describe making the association as a user moves from a first location to a second location.
The Vilermo reference, however, teaches a vehicle system that includes sensors, such as RF sensors, to detect the location of each passenger inside a vehicle. Vilermo at Abs., ¶¶ 34–49, FIGs.1–3. Audio is routed to each passenger based on his known position. Id. at ¶¶ 56, 57, 94, FIGs.4, 5 (step 4.6, 5.7–5.9). If passengers change position during a trip, the system updates its position map to reflect the new passenger positions. Id. at ¶¶ 92–97. Audio is then re-routed based on the updated map so that audio effectively follows passengers as they move throughout the vehicle’s interior. Id. This prevents audio from being routed to the wrong place as passengers move around in a vehicle. Id.
Read in light of Nash’s disclosure concerning the routing of audio to user’s based on their known position, Vilermo reasonably suggests modifying Nash’s approach. In particular, Vilermo teaches and suggests tracking changes in passenger position from a first location to a second location in order to update the audio routing of audio. In this way, the audio will be routed accurately despite the user’s having moved from their initially determined positions. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform operations comprising:
“
“determining, for a plurality of speakers of the vehicle and based at least in part on the relative volume, a plurality of gains; and
“causing the plurality of speakers to emit the first and second audio data based at least in part on the plurality of gains.”
Audio priorities are set for different zones in a vehicle, such that the priority for each piece of content 300, 302 for each audio device 110 (e.g., speakers in different cabin locations) is based on the user’s location (i.e., determined by a camera) relative to the audio devices. Nash at ¶¶ 36, 42–44, 55, 69. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform operations comprising:
“determining, based on the vehicle data, a first state of the vehicle.”
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, and further requires the following:
“wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform operations comprising:
“determining that the vehicle has changed from the first state to a second state wherein the second state is different from the first state; and
“determining, based at least in part on the second state of the vehicle, the first audio priority, whereby the relative volume of the first audio data to the second audio is different at the second vehicle state than at the first vehicle state.”
Claims 19–20 are treated together because they commonly relate to detecting a vehicle state and changes in vehicle state. Similarly, the Nash reference describes adjusting priorities assigned to content 300 and 302 by detecting the state of a vehicle and transitions from a first state to a second state including normal (e.g., driving) movement, abnormal movement (e.g., lane violations) and parking. Nash at ¶¶ 79–83. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Nash and the Vilermo references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Summary
Claims 1–8, 10–16 and 18–22 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.
Additional Citations
The following table lists additional reference that were identified during a search of this Application. While this Office action does not rely on these references, they are relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed. The Examiner advises careful consideration of these references in preparing a reply.
Citation
Relevance
US 2023/0118803
Priority set based on audio content type and semantics. Adjusts volume based on priority.
US 2021/0256952
Determines priority based on sound level of ambient audio.
Table 4
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (15 June 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 11–12 includes comments pertaining to the rejections presented in the Non-Final Rejection (26 February 2026). Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 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
7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights