DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2 and 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hera1 (US 20150279346 A1), in view of Ogino (US 20250121837 A1), and further in view of Costello (US 20060177797 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Hera1 (US 20150279346 A1) discloses an engine sound enhancement (ESE) system and a method (Hera, ¶ [0001]: vehicle engine sound enhancement and related methods and systems.”), comprising a controller configured to: calculate a reference frequency of engine vibrations based on the RPM signal (Hera1, ¶ [0006]: “providing a fundamental frequency corresponding to the RPM of an engine of a vehicle; determining a plurality of harmonics of the fundamental frequency”).
However, Hera1 fails to disclose to receive a revolutions per minute (RPM) signal from an engine control unit (ECU) of a vehicle.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ogino (US 20250121837 A1) discloses receiving a revolutions per minute (RPM) signal from an engine control unit (ECU) of a vehicle (Ogino, ¶ [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ogino with Herat1 to sense the RPM (Ogino, Fig. 1, sensor 35) and inform ECU which regulates RPM for the purpose of controlling the noise inside a vehicle.
Hera fails to disclose generate one or more waveforms, wherein each of the one or more waveforms has a playback rate based on the reference frequency, and wherein a first waveform of the one or more waveforms includes a first pulse modified by a first pulse variation; generate an ESE output signal based on the one or more waveforms; and provide the ESE output signal to an audio output system.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Costello (US 20060177797 A1) discloses generating one or more waveforms, wherein each of the one or more waveforms has a playback rate based on the reference frequency (Costello, Fig. 1, ¶ [0025]: “produces an output waveform 14 which varies with RPM. Playback engine 10 contains a number of stored digital waveforms, each of which is transposed up and down in frequency as a function of RPM”), and wherein
a first waveform of the one or more waveforms includes a first pulse modified by a first pulse variation (Costello, Fig. 1, output waveform 14 is the summation of at least two sinusoidals, e.g. 16 and 18, and therefore output waveform 14 includes a first pulse modified by a first pulse variation);
generate an ESE output signal based on the one or more waveforms (Costello, Fig. 1, item 30); and
provide the ESE output signal to an audio output system (Costello, Fig. 1, item 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention add Costello with the combination of Hera1 and Ogino to produce an output waveform comprising at least two constituent waveforms which are transposed up and down in frequency with RPM of the motor load.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively.
Costello further discloses, wherein the one or more waveforms are generated based on one or more vehicle properties of the vehicle (Costello, Fig. 1, item 12 and 26; ¶ [0026]: “A circuit receives the signal 12 representative of engine RPM at an input”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Costello further discloses wherein the first pulse variation is applied to the first pulse at a delay time (Costello, Fig. 1, items 10, 14, 20; ¶ [0025]: “Output waveform 14 comprises a mix of at least two of the stored waveforms, which are crossfaded between as a function of RPM; this is symbolized in FIG. 1 with a summing circuit 20”. See also ¶ [0049]). That is, the response of the input signal can be generated, by superposition, as the sum of weighted responses to individual components or basis functions that are used to represent the original signal, this principle is well known in the art (Fourier series).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Costello further discloses an ESE (engine sound enhancement), wherein a period of the first pulse variation is less than a period of the first pulse (Costello, Fig.1, ¶ [0025], a pulse variation can be introduced by superposition of sinusoids as well adjusting the period; see also claim 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Costello further discloses, wherein the period of the first pulse variation is less than or equal to one-seventh of the period of the first pulse (At least one of the pulse variations introduced by superposition of the sinusoids of Fig1 would be less than or equal to one-seventh of the period of the first pulse, having an amplitude of the first pulse variation less than an amplitude of the first pulse with the first pulse (variation) being "substantially" sinusoidal.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Costello further discloses, wherein an amplitude of the first pulse variation is less than an amplitude of the first pulse (Costello, Fig. 1, based on superposition , as the sum of weighted responses to individual components with respective delays, see ¶ [0025] and ¶ [0026]: “A circuit 26 receives the signal 12 representative of engine RPM at an input, and produces a "computed load value" output 28, which varies as a function of the rate of change of RPM, as a function of an external load input which may be derived from a physics engine, or as a function of both rate of change of RPM and an external load input.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Costello further discloses wherein the RPM signal corresponds to an equivalent RPM of an internal combustion engine vehicle (Costello, Fig. 1, items 10, 14, 20; ¶ [0025]: “Output waveform 14 comprises a mix of at least two of the stored waveforms, which are crossfaded between as a function of RPM; this is symbolized in FIG. 1 with a summing circuit 20” and Figs. 1-9, item 12). That is, the response of an output signal can be generated, by superposition, as the sum of weighted responses to individual components to simulate an internal combustion engine vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively.
Costello further discloses, wherein the first pulse is substantially sinusoidal (Costello, Fig. 1, items 16, 18, the shape of a pulse can be modeled to be substantially sinusoidal by utilizing the well-known Fourier series).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively.
Costello further discloses, wherein the first pulse variation is substantially sinusoidal (Costello, Fig. 1, item 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively.
Costello further discloses, wherein the first waveform includes a second pulse modified by a second pulse variation (Costello, Fig. 1, item 36 and 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and 17 respectively.
Costello further discloses, wherein an amplitude of the first pulse equals an amplitude of the second pulse, and wherein a period of the first pulse equals a period of the second pulse (Costello, Fig. 1, items 10, 14, 20; ¶ [0025]: “Output waveform 14 comprises a mix of at least two of the stored waveforms, which are crossfaded between as a function of RPM; this is symbolized in FIG. 1 with a summing circuit 20”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Costello further discloses an amplitude, a delay time (Costello, ¶ [0090]: “the EHE processor can be configured to determine an amount of gain (amplitude) or delay to be applied to the engine harmonic enhancement signal,”), or a period of the second pulse variation differs from an amplitude, a delay time, or a period of the first pulse variation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Costello further discloses, wherein (a) a delay time of the first pulse variation differs from a delay time of the second pulse variation, or (b) an amplitude of the first pulse variation differs from an amplitude of the second pulse variation, or (c) a period of the first pulse variation differs from a period of the second pulse variation, Costello, Fig. 1, items 16 and 36 shows at least one of the pulse variations introduced by superposition and delays of the sinusoids that would be less than or equal to a second of the period of the first pulse, having an amplitude of the first pulse variation less than an amplitude of the first pulse with the first pulse (variation) being "substantially" sinusoidal. See also paragraph [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to generate engine sounds (amplitude, frequency, period, shape, delays, shift) using an infinite or finite sum of sinusoidal components (harmonics), to produce any engine sound, which would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hera 1(US 20150279346 A1), in view of Ogino (US 20250121837 A1), in view of Costello (US 20060177797 A1), and further in view of Hera2 (US 20150003618 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
However, the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello fails to disclose wherein the one or more vehicle properties include vehicle manufacturer, vehicle model, model year, and/or manufacture year.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hera (US 20150003618 A1) discloses one or more vehicle properties include vehicle manufacturer, vehicle model, model year, and/or manufacture year (Hera, ¶ [0071]: “a particular automobile model”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Hera2 to the combination of Hera1, Ogino and Costello to provide model, which is associated with the vehicle manufacturer, vehicle model, model year, and/or manufacture year which would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 FRIEDRICH FAHNERT whose telephone number is (571)270-7797. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am-4:00 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/Primary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
/FRIEDRICH FAHNERT/
Examiner
Art Unit 2692
9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights