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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hera et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0197195) and Murota (US Pub No. 2023/0271283).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Hera teaches a system and method of audibly alerting a user of a vehicle, the system and method comprising:
a vehicle speaker and a vehicle control system communicably coupled to the vehicle speaker (See [0051], [0061], and [0088]);
receiving, in a vehicle control system, a first event associated with a first operational mode related to the vehicle; responsive to the first event, triggering, by the vehicle control system, playback of first audio indicative of the first operational mode; receiving, in the vehicle control system, a second event associated with a second operational mode related to the vehicle (See [0057], [0088], and [0122] teach a engine noise module that outputs motor noise to a speaker for both of its operation modes, an EV mode and IC mode).
Hera does not teach responsive to the second event, triggering, by the vehicle control system, playback of second audio in correspondence to a predefined time relationship between the first audio and the second audio, such that substantially continuous audio indicative of the second operational mode is played to the user, the substantially continuous audio comprising at least a portion of the first audio and at least a portion of the second audio.
Murota teaches responsive to the second event, triggering, by the vehicle control system, playback of second audio in correspondence to a predefined time relationship between the first audio and the second audio, such that substantially continuous audio indicative of the second operational mode is played to the user, the substantially continuous audio comprising at least a portion of the first audio and at least a portion of the second audio (See [0033] teaches different sounds for each mode and that sounds can be continuous and combined to output a continuous sound with another sound to indicate for notification of adjustments to the user.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Hera’s device to include Murota’s teachings in order to more clearly express the transition between two modes of operation. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 2, Hera teaches the second event is received during the triggered
playback of the first audio (See [0122]).
Regarding claim 3, Hera does not teach the triggering playback of the second audio comprises starting the second audio substantially simultaneously with a termination of the first audio.
Murota teaches the triggering playback of the second audio comprises starting the second audio substantially simultaneously with a termination of the first audio (See [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Hera does not teach the triggering playback of the second audio further comprises terminating the first audio prior to completion and at a predefined termination point in the first audio.
Murota teaches the triggering playback of the second audio further comprises terminating the first audio prior to completion and at a predefined termination point in the first audio (See [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Hera does not teach substantially continuous audio comprises a sequence of sounds indicative of the second operational mode, the at least a portion of the first audio comprising at least one of the sequence of sounds.
Murota teaches the substantially continuous audio comprises a sequence of sounds indicative of the second operational mode, the at least a portion of the first audio comprising at least one of the sequence of sounds (See [0033]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hera and Murota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng (US Pub No. 2020/0192360).
Regarding claim 9, Hera does not teach the second operational mode represents a progression in a plurality of operational levels related to the vehicle.
Zheng teaches a second operational mode that represents a progression in a plurality of operational levels related to the vehicle (See abstract and [0132]-[0135]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Hera to include Zheng’s teachings in order to provide a safe manner for enabling automated driving features. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 10, Hera does not teach the plurality of operational levels correspond to levels of automatic driver assistance provided by the vehicle control system, the second operational mode representing an increased level of automatic driver assistance relative to the first operational mode.
Zheng teaches the plurality of operational levels correspond to levels of automatic driver assistance provided by the vehicle control system, the second operational mode representing an increased level of automatic driver assistance relative to the first operational mode (See abstract and [0132]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 11, Hera does not teach the triggering playback of the second audio further comprises terminating the first audio prior to completion and at a predefined termination point in the first audio.
Zheng teaches the triggering playback of the second audio further comprises terminating the first audio prior to completion and at a predefined termination point in the first audio (See abstract and [0132]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 19, Hera does not teach the second operational mode represents a progression in a plurality of operational levels related to the vehicle, the plurality of operational levels corresponding to levels of automatic driver assistance provided by the vehicle control system.
Zheng teaches the second operational mode represents a progression in a plurality of operational levels related to the vehicle, the plurality of operational levels corresponding to levels of automatic driver assistance provided by the vehicle control system (See abstract and [0132]-[0135]).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hera and Murota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0239352).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Hera does not teach the first event and the second event comprise user inputs received via the same input device.
Wang teaches the first event and the second event comprise user inputs received via the same input device (See [0014]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Hera’s system to include Wang’s teachings to provide “a solution to enable a vehicle to perform automatic driving operations under various circumstances at different levels of automation” (Wang, [0003]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hera and Murota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goren et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0150070).
Regarding claim 13, Hera does not teach the first event and the second event comprise automated notifications of safety conditions relative to the vehicle.
Goren teaches the first event and the second event comprise automated notifications of safety conditions relative to the vehicle (See [0116]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Hera’s system to include Goren’s teachings to ensure greater safety for the driver and passengers of the vehicle. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686