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 1–3, 5, 6 and 10–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-65260 (published 11 April 2013) (“Ariki”); US Patent 6,606,027 (patented 12 August 2003) (“Reeves”) and US Patent 9,762,195 (patented 12 September 2017) (“Tao”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki; Reeves; Tao and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0056326 (published 25 February 2021) (“Kumar”).
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki; Reeves; Tao and JPH10283592A (published 23 October 1998) (“Tsuchiya”).
Claims 14–16, 18, 19 and 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki and Reeves.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki; Reeves and Kumar.
Claims 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki; Reeves; and Tsuchiya.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a system for generating spatial audio alerts.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Ariki reference.
Claim 1
The Ariki Reference
“1. A system for generating spatial audio alerts, the system comprising:
The Ariki reference similarly describes a vehicular alarm device corresponding to the claimed system. Ariki at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 23, FIG.1.
“one or more ultrasonic transducers disposed in a cab of a truck;
Ariki’s device likewise includes arrays 31–34, each containing a set of ultrasonic elements 30, disposed in various interior, or cab, positions of a vehicle 100, including the dash 51, seats, 41 and headrests 42. Id. at ¶¶ 38, 42, FIGs.2, 3(c).
“one or more sensors disposed in or around the truck;
Ariki’s device includes a danger detection unit 10 corresponding to the claimed sensor. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28, FIG.1. Unit 10 detects, or senses, the distance and direction between a point of interest and vehicle 100. Id.
“one or more processors; and
“one or more computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a method comprising:
Ariki’s device includes control unit 20 corresponding to the claimed processors and computer readable media—namely, Ariki includes a CPU and ROM. Id. at ¶ 30, FIG.1. Control unit 20 performs the process of controlling Ariki’s device. Id.
“detecting, by the one or more sensors, a hazard;
Ariki’s control process includes using danger detection unit 10 to detect a danger, point of interest, or hazard. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28.
“identifying a direction of the hazard relative to a driver of the truck; and
Control unit 20 uses the data from danger detection unit 10 to detect the direction and distance of the hazard relative to vehicle 100. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28, 44–56, FIG.5(a).
“generating a spatial audio alert,
“wherein generating a spatial audio alert comprises emitting, from the one or more ultrasonic transducers, an ultrasonic carrier wave modulated with audio content directed toward a location based on the direction of the hazard,
“wherein the ultrasonic carrier wave demodulates upon contacting an interior surface of the cab of the truck and generates a spatial audio alert audible from the location based on the direction of the hazard.”
Control unit 20 outputs a spatial audio alert using ultrasonic transducers 30. Id. at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). The alert, like the claimed alert, is an ultrasonic carrier wave modulated with audio content and directed to a position relative to a driver (e.g., left and/or right ear) to position the alert relative to the driver in an analogous manner to the position of the detected hazard relative to vehicle 100. Id. The modulated audio self-demodulates due to phase convergence to recreate sound at the directed position (e.g., the user’s ears, which coincides with the headrest 42). Id. at ¶¶ 31, 141–144, FIG.13.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Ariki reference describes a device that corresponds closely to the claimed system. Ariki does not anticipate the claimed system, however, because the Ariki reference does not describe its vehicle as a truck. Ariki also does not describe configuring its ultrasonic transducers so that the emitted spatial audio alerts demodulate upon contacting an interior surface of a cab of a truck.
The Ariki reference describes a device for providing directional alerts in a vehicle. The Reeves reference similarly describes a vehicle safety sensor system capable of detecting and alerting a driver about the presence of obstacles, like other vehicles. Reeves at Abs. col. 1 ll. 13–25, col. 3 ll. 16–37. Reeves describes a truck, such as a tractor trailer, with a tractor and a trailer. Id. at col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 9, FIG.2. Reeves teaches and suggests mounting sensors 100 in various places, including the tractor and its trailer in order to detect the distance between the vehicle and objects around the vehicle. Id. Read in combination with Ariki’s description of a danger detection unit in a vehicle, Reeves reasonably suggests applying Ariki’s device to a tractor trailer with sensors located on the truck’s tractor and the truck’s trailer.
Ariki describes generating sounds aimed at a driver’s left and right ears in order to spatially position an alert to correspond to the distance and direction of a detected point of interest. Ariki at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). Though Ariki specifically describes positioning the alerts at a driver’s ears so that the modulated acoustic waves self-demodulate at the driver’s ears, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that drivers have different sized heads and ear positions making it impossible without some driver sensor mechanism to aim sound at the ears of all potential drivers.
The Tao reference further teaches and suggests that modulated ultrasonic waves, such as those described in Ariki, may be aimed at a surface, such as a wall, where the waves demodulate to produce an audible signal. Tao at col. 2 ll. 52–63, col. 4 ll. 21–52, FIG.1. The audible signal will reflect off the surface, such that the audible signal appears to emanate from the surface. Id.
Reading Ariki and Tao together, would have reasonably suggested the claimed invention. Ariki describes a base device that uses self-demodulating ultrasonic waves to spatially position audible alerts to simulate a position of a corresponding obstacle. Tao further explains that by positioning the alerts to self-demodulate near a surface, the audible alerts will reflect off a surface to create an illusion of presence at the location. These teachings reasonably suggest their combination such that Ariki’s alerts are aimed for self-demodulation at any fixed location in the vehicle (e.g., near a driver’s ears, such as the headrest 42 that will be proximate to the driver’s ears) in order to impress upon the driver the relative location of an obstacle relative to a vehicle. In that case, the sounds will self-demodulate at the surface of the vehicle, such as the headrest or any other interior surface, in order to alert the driver as to the presence of an obstacle at that location. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more ultrasonic transducers are configured to emit ultrasonic carrier waves in a plurality of directions.”
Ariki describes emitting ultrasonic carrier waves towards both a driver’s left ear and right ear. Ariki at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more ultrasonic transducers are attached to at least one of:
“a ceiling of the cab of the truck,
“an interior surface of a windshield of the cab of the truck,
“a dashboard of the cab of the truck or an instrument panel thereof,
“a console of the cab of the truck,
“a door of the cab of the truck,
“a wall of the cab of the truck, a pillar of the cab of the truck, or
“a floor of the cab of the truck.”
Ariki describes positioning arrays 31–34 in the dashboard 51. Ariki at ¶ 42, FIG.3(c). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is used for autonomous navigation.”
Ariki describes detecting the distance between vehicle 100 and obstacles 200. Ariki at ¶¶ 24–28, 44–56, FIG.5(a). The Kumar reference further teaches and suggests using distance sensors to detect objects in order to autonomously park a vehicle. Kumar at ¶ 8, Read in light of Ariki, Kumar’s teachings reasonably suggest using distance sensors for both autonomous navigation and for obstacle detection in order to produce alerts. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the Kumar references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is attached to a trailer of the truck.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of embodying Ariki’s alarm device in a truck and to detect points of interest using sensors (e.g., Reeves sensors 100) in a trailer of a truck. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hazard comprises a stopped vehicle, a merging vehicle, an object, a pothole, a construction roadblock, a traffic incident, or a lane closure.”
Ariki describes points of interest as obstacles 200, such as merging vehicles and pedestrians. Ariki at ¶ 25. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spatial audio alert comprises a spoken language alert.”
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a nature of the hazard.”
Claim 9 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a location of the hazard.”
Claims 7–9 are analyzed together. Ariki describes emitting alarm sounds. Ariki at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). Ariki at Ariki does not describe emitting spoken language alerts. The Tsuchiya reference, however, further teaches and suggests a vehicle alert system that provides accurate information to assist navigation, particularly on narrow roads. Tsuchiya at ¶¶ 10, 15, 17, Tsuchiya’s system includes a voice generating unit 13 that generates spoken alerts, such as “left front caution,” which indicates a position and nature of an obstacle. Id. Read in the context of Ariki, Tsuchiya reasonably suggests modifying Ariki’s system to similarly include a voice generating unit to produce an alert that includes a voice to indicate the nature and position of a detected obstacle. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the Tsuchiya references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the method further comprises:
“repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert;
“determining that the hazard no longer exists; and
“ceasing to emit the spatial audio alert.”
Similarly, Ariki describes repeatedly emitting alerts to match movement of an obstacle relative to vehicle 100. Ariki at ¶¶ 32, 52. Ariki describes detecting the absence/presence of obstacles 200 and emitting alerts only when obstacle 200 is present. Id. at ¶ 80. While Ariki does not describe the cessation of an alert when an obstacle 200 is no longer detected, one of ordinary skill would have immediately recognized that desirable result. Common sense dictates there is plainly no benefit to emitting an alert in perpetuity after an obstacle is detected. Rather, one of ordinary skill would have configured Ariki’s system to only output alerts when an obstacle 200 is relevant by being detected. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert comprises dynamically adjusting a volume of the spatial audio alert based on a distance between the hazard and the truck.”
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and further requires the following:
“wherein the volume of the spatial audio alert increases as the distance between the hazard and the truck decreases.”
Claims 11 and 12 are treated together. Ariki similarly describes adjusting alert volumes based on distance, such that the volume increases as an obstacle 200 approaches vehicle 100 and reducing volume as an obstacle 200 moves away from vehicle 100. Ariki at ¶ 78. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the truck is retrofitted with the one or more ultrasonic transducers.”
This claim requires retrofitting a truck with an ultrasonic transducer. This is a product-by-process limitation. It is not apparent how the process of retrofitting alters the structure of the claimed system. Accordingly, this claim is not limiting on the scope of claim 1. In any case, given the detailed teachings of Ariki concerning the type and location of speaker arrays 31–34, it would have been obvious to either build a new car with Ariki’s ultrasonic speaker arrays 31–34 or to retrofit an existing car with Ariki’s ultrasonic speaker arrays 31–34 using known automotive manufacturing techniques. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tao references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 is drawn to “a system for generating spatial audio alerts.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Ariki reference.
Claim 14
The Ariki Reference
“14. A system for generating spatial audio alerts, the system comprising:
The Ariki reference similarly describes a vehicular alarm device corresponding to the claimed system. Ariki at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 23, FIG.1.
“a plurality of speakers disposed in a cab of a truck;
Ariki’s device likewise includes arrays 31–34, each containing a set of ultrasonic elements 30, disposed in various interior, or cab, positions of a vehicle 100, including the dash 51, seats, 41 and headrests 42. Id. at ¶¶ 38, 42, FIGs.2, 3(c).
“one or more sensors disposed in or around the truck;
Ariki’s device includes a danger detection unit 10 corresponding to the claimed sensor. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28, FIG.1. Unit 10 detects, or senses, the distance and direction between a point of interest and vehicle 100. Id.
“one or more processors; and
“one or more computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a method comprising:
Ariki’s device includes control unit 20 corresponding to the claimed processors and computer readable media—namely, Ariki includes a CPU and ROM. Id. at ¶ 30, FIG.1. Control unit 20 performs the process of controlling Ariki’s device. Id.
“detecting, by the one or more sensors, a hazard;
Ariki’s control process includes using danger detection unit 10 to detect a danger, point of interest, or hazard. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28.
“identifying a direction of the hazard relative to a driver of the truck; and
Control unit 20 uses the data from danger detection unit 10 to detect the direction and distance of the hazard relative to vehicle 100. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28, 44–56, FIG.5(a).
“generating a spatial audio alert, wherein generating a spatial audio alert comprises controlling a phase of an audio signal emitted from at least one speaker of the plurality of speakers to generate a spatial audio alert audible from a location based on the direction of the hazard.”
Control unit 20 outputs a spatial audio alert using ultrasonic transducers 30. Id. at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). The alert, like the claimed alert, is an ultrasonic carrier wave modulated with audio content and directed to a position relative to a driver (e.g., left and/or right ear) to position the alert relative to the driver in an analogous manner to the position of the detected hazard relative to vehicle 100. Id. The modulated audio self-demodulates due to phase convergence to recreate sound at the directed position (e.g., the user’s ears, which coincides with the headrest 42). Id. at ¶¶ 31, 141–144, FIG.13.
Table 2
The table above shows that the Ariki reference describes a device that corresponds closely to the claimed system. Ariki does not anticipate the claimed system, however, because the Ariki reference does not describe its vehicle as a truck.
The Ariki reference describes a device for providing directional alerts in a vehicle. The Reeves reference similarly describes a vehicle safety sensor system capable of detecting and alerting a driver about the presence of obstacles, like other vehicles. Reeves at Abs. col. 1 ll. 13–25, col. 3 ll. 16–37. Reeves describes a truck, such as a tractor trailer, with a tractor and a trailer. Id. at col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 9, FIG.2. Reeves teaches and suggests mounting sensors 100 in various places, including the tractor and its trailer in order to detect the distance between the vehicle and objects around the vehicle. Id. Read in combination with Ariki’s description of a danger detection unit in a vehicle, Reeves reasonably suggests applying Ariki’s device to a tractor trailer with sensors located on the truck’s tractor and the truck’s trailer. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki and the Reeves references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein generating a spatial audio alert comprises controlling an amplitude of the audio signal emitted from the at least one speaker.”
Ariki similarly describes adjusting amplitude/volume based on distance, such that the volume increases as an obstacle 200 approaches vehicle 100 and reducing volume as an obstacle 200 moves away from vehicle 100. Ariki at ¶ 78. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki and the Reeves references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the plurality of speakers are attached to at least one of:
“a ceiling of the cab of the truck,
“an interior surface of a windshield of the cab of the truck,
“a dashboard of the cab of the truck or an instrument panel thereof,
“a console of the cab of the truck,
“a door of the cab of the truck,
“a wall of the cab of the truck,
“a pillar of the cab of the truck, or
“a floor of the cab of the truck.”
Ariki describes positioning arrays 31–34 in the dashboard 51. Ariki at ¶ 42, FIG.3(c). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki and the Reeves references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is used for autonomous navigation.”
Ariki describes detecting the distance between vehicle 100 and obstacles 200. Ariki at ¶¶ 24–28, 44–56, FIG.5(a). The Kumar reference further teaches and suggests using distance sensors to detect objects in order to autonomously park a vehicle. Kumar at ¶ 8, Read in light of Ariki, Kumar’s teachings reasonably suggest using distance sensors for both autonomous navigation and for obstacle detection in order to produce alerts. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Kumar references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is attached to a trailer of the truck.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 14, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of embodying Ariki’s alarm device in a truck and to detect points of interest using sensors (e.g., Reeves sensors 100) in a trailer of a truck. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki and the Reeves references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hazard comprises a stopped vehicle, a merging vehicle, an object, a pothole, a construction roadblock, a traffic incident, or a lane closure.”
Ariki describes points of interest as obstacles 200, such as merging vehicles and pedestrians. Ariki at ¶ 25. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki and the Reeves references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spatial audio alert comprises a spoken language alert.”
Claim 21 depends on claim 20, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a nature of the hazard.”
Claim 22 depends on claim 20, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a location of the hazard.”
Claims 20–22 are analyzed together. Ariki describes emitting alarm sounds. Ariki at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). Ariki at Ariki does not describe emitting spoken language alerts. The Tsuchiya reference, however, further teaches and suggests a vehicle alert system that provides accurate information to assist navigation, particularly on narrow roads. Tsuchiya at ¶¶ 10, 15, 17, Tsuchiya’s system includes a voice generating unit 13 that generates spoken alerts, such as “left front caution,” which indicates a position and nature of an obstacle. Id. Read in the context of Ariki, Tsuchiya reasonably suggests modifying Ariki’s system to similarly include a voice generating unit to produce an alert that includes a voice to indicate the nature and position of a detected obstacle. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves and the Tsuchiya references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 23 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the method further comprises:
“repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert;
“determining that the hazard no longer exists; and
“ceasing to emit the spatial audio alert.”
Similarly, Ariki describes repeatedly emitting alerts to match movement of an obstacle relative to vehicle 100. Ariki at ¶¶ 32, 52. Ariki describes detecting the absence/presence of obstacles 200 and emitting alerts only when obstacle 200 is present. Id. at ¶ 80. While Ariki does not describe the cessation of an alert when an obstacle 200 is no longer detected, one of ordinary skill would have immediately recognized that desirable result. Common sense dictates there is plainly no benefit to emitting an alert in perpetuity after an obstacle is detected. Rather, one of ordinary skill would have configured Ariki’s system to only output alerts when an obstacle 200 is relevant by being detected. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki and the Reeves references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23, and further requires the following:
“wherein repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert comprises dynamically adjusting a volume of the spatial audio alert based on a distance between the hazard and the truck.”
Claim 25 depends on claim 24, and further requires the following:
“wherein the volume of the spatial audio alert increases as the distance between the hazard and the truck decreases.”
Claims 24 and 25 are treated together. Ariki similarly describes adjusting alert volumes based on distance, such that the volume increases as an obstacle 200 approaches vehicle 100 and reducing volume as an obstacle 200 moves away from vehicle 100. Ariki at ¶ 78. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki and the Reeves references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–25 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.
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
3/13/2026