DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on June 12, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 17-19, 20 and 22 have been amended. Claims 15-16 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14, 17-18 and 20-24 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14, 17-18 and 20-24 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 1, 18 and 22. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 17-18, 20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Application JP 2019-119375 A to Nagano in view of Japanese Application JP 2022-46259 A to Nakamura.
As to claim 1, Nagano discloses a vehicle noise cancelling apparatus comprising: at least one microphone provided on a vehicle and configured to detect a noise generated from one or more noise sources (see figures 1-4; pg. 2, ¶ 0001; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019 of the English translation); at least one antiphase speaker configured to generate an antiphase sound wave (see figures 1-4; pg. 12, ¶ 0012; pgs. 15-16, ¶ 0016); one or more processors; and one or more memories storing program instructions (see figures 1-2; pg. 20, ¶ 0021), wherein, by executing the program instructions, the one or more processors are configured to: obtain the detected noise from the at least one microphone (see pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019); measure parameters based on an environment in which the vehicle is being driven (see pg. 13, ¶ 0013; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018); determine a radiation pattern of the noise based on the detected noise and the measured parameters; produce a sound wave in antiphase to the detected noise based on the radiation pattern of the noise; and control the at least one antiphase speaker to generate the antiphase sound wave (see pg. 7, ¶ 0007; pg. 13, ¶ 0013; pgs. 15-16, ¶ 0016; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019; pg. 22, ¶ 0023).
Nagano further discloses determining whether the detected noise is at least one of a dynamic noise which is based on a movement of the vehicle and a static noise which is independent of the movement of the vehicle, and based on the detected noise being the dynamic noise, correct the cancellation signal (different sound signals detected, cancellation signal corrected using noise that changes based on vehicle speed and steering angle, see figures 1-3; pgs. 12-13, ¶ 0012 - ¶ 0013; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018 - ¶ 0019; pg. 24, ¶ 0024), but does not disclose correcting the cancellation signal by correcting a pitch of the produced antiphase sound wave according to a speed at which the vehicle moves from a location at which the noise is generated. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Nakamura, which discloses a similar system, and further discloses the noise cancelling device being configured to change the pitch of the cancellation sound based on the speed at which the vehicle moves (see pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046 of the English translation). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, and further as adjusting the pitch based on speed at which the vehicle moves allows for a more appropriate noise cancellation that takes into account dynamic movement of the noise source (Nakamura pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007; pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046).
As to claim 2, Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses wherein the at least one microphone and the at least one antiphase speaker are provided adjacent to the one or more noise sources (Nagano figures 1-4; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019 - ¶ 0020).
As to claim 4, Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses wherein the one or more noise sources include at least one of a driving wheel of a ground vehicle and a propeller of an aerial vehicle (Nagano figures 1-4).
As to claim 7, Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store a parameter model in a database, and wherein the parameter model is generated by learning the measured parameters in advance (Nagano pgs. 16-17, ¶ 0017; pgs. 20-21, ¶ 0022).
As to claim 8, Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the radiation pattern of the noise by comparing the measured parameters with the generated parameter model (Nagano pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0008; pgs. 23-24, ¶ 0024).
As to claim 17, Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to change an amount by which the pitch is corrected according to a change in speed at which the vehicle moves from the location at which the noise is generated, and wherein the pitch after the correction corresponds to the pitch before the correction and the amount of correction (Nakamura pitch change corresponds to speed change, see pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007; pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046).
As to claim 18, Nagano discloses a vehicle noise cancelling method performed by an apparatus which comprises a processor and a memory storing program instructions to be executed by the processor (see figures 1-4; pg. 2, ¶ 0001; pg. 20, ¶ 0021), the method comprising: detecting a noise generated from one or more noise sources with at least one microphone provided on a vehicle (see figures 1-4; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019); measuring parameters based on an environment in which the vehicle is being driven (see pg. 13, ¶ 0013; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018); determining a radiation pattern of the noise based on the detected noise and the measured parameters; producing a sound wave in antiphase to the detected noise based on the radiation pattern of the noise (see pg. 7, ¶ 0007; pg. 13, ¶ 0013; pgs. 15-16, ¶ 0016; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019; pg. 22, ¶ 0023); generating the produced antiphase sound wave through at least one antiphase speaker (see figures 1-4; pg. 12, ¶ 0012; pgs. 15-16, ¶ 0016), wherein the at least one microphone and the at least one antiphase speaker are provided adjacent to the one or more noise sources (see figures 1-4; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019 - ¶ 0020).
Nagano further discloses determining whether the detected noise is at least one of a dynamic noise which is based on a movement of the vehicle and a static noise which is independent of the movement of the vehicle, and based on the detected noise being the dynamic noise, correct the cancellation signal (different sound signals detected, cancellation signal corrected using noise that changes based on vehicle speed and steering angle, see figures 1-3; pgs. 12-13, ¶ 0012 - ¶ 0013; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018 - ¶ 0019; pg. 24, ¶ 0024), but does not disclose correcting the cancellation signal by correcting a pitch of the produced antiphase sound wave according to a speed at which the vehicle moves from a location at which the noise is generated. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Nakamura, which discloses a similar system, and further discloses the noise cancelling device being configured to change the pitch of the cancellation sound based on the speed at which the vehicle moves (see pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046 of the English translation). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, and further as adjusting the pitch based on speed at which the vehicle moves allows for a more appropriate noise cancellation that takes into account dynamic movement of the noise source (Nakamura pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007; pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046).
As to claim 20, Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses further comprising storing a parameter model in a database, the parameter model being generated by learning the measured parameters in advance (Nagano pgs. 16-17, ¶ 0017; pgs. 20-21, ¶ 0022).
As to claim 22, Nagano discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by one or more processors (see figures 1-2; pg. 20, ¶ 0021) cause the one or more processors to execute a vehicle noise cancelling method (see pg. 2, ¶ 0001) comprising: obtaining a detected noise from at least one microphone provided on a vehicle (see figures 1-4; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019); measuring parameters based on an environment in which the vehicle is being driven (see pg. 13, ¶ 0013; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018); determining a radiation pattern of the noise based on the detected noise and the measured parameters; producing a sound wave in antiphase to the detected noise based on the radiation pattern; generating the produced antiphase sound wave through at least one antiphase speaker (see figures 1-4; pg. 7, ¶ 0007; pgs. 12-13, ¶ 0012 - ¶ 0013; pgs. 15-16, ¶ 0016; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019; pg. 22, ¶ 0023).
Nagano further discloses determining whether the detected noise is at least one of a dynamic noise which is based on a movement of the vehicle and a static noise which is independent of the movement of the vehicle, and based on the detected noise being the dynamic noise, correct the cancellation signal (different sound signals detected, cancellation signal corrected using noise that changes based on vehicle speed and steering angle, see figures 1-3; pgs. 12-13, ¶ 0012 - ¶ 0013; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018 - ¶ 0019; pg. 24, ¶ 0024), but does not disclose correcting the cancellation signal by correcting a pitch of the produced antiphase sound wave according to a speed at which the vehicle moves from a location at which the noise is generated. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Nakamura, which discloses a similar system, and further discloses the noise cancelling device being configured to change the pitch of the cancellation sound based on the speed at which the vehicle moves (see pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046 of the English translation). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, and further as adjusting the pitch based on speed at which the vehicle moves allows for a more appropriate noise cancellation that takes into account dynamic movement of the noise source (Nakamura pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007; pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046).
As to claim 23, Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses wherein the vehicle noise cancelling method further comprises: storing a parameter model in a database, wherein the parameter model is generated by learning the measured parameters in advance (Nagano pgs. 16-17, ¶ 0017; pgs. 20-21, ¶ 0022); and determining the radiation pattern by comparing the measured parameters with the generated parameter model (Nagano pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0008; pgs. 23-24, ¶ 0024).
4. Claim(s) 5-6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Nakamura, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2024/0034463 A1 to Shi et al. (“Shi”).
As to claim 5, Nagano in view of Nakamura discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
Nagano in view of Nakamura does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to control the at least one antiphase speaker to generate the antiphase sound wave having directivity by controlling a sound field of the at least one antiphase speaker. However such a configuration is considered obvious in view of Shi, which discloses a similar noise cancelling system, and further discloses the use of speakers to perform directional suppression of noise in a localized area (see pg. 4, ¶ 0052 - ¶ 0053; pg. 5, ¶ 0063). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide localized noise suppression, and particularly to enhance the noise suppression capability in a specific direction of concern (Shi pg. 4, ¶ 0052; pg. 5, ¶ 0063).
As to claim 6, Nagano in view of Nakamura and Shi further discloses wherein the at least one antiphase speaker is arranged as an array speaker (Shi pg. 4, ¶ 0052 - ¶ 0053; pg. 5, ¶ 0063).
As to claim 21, Nagano in view of Nakamura and Shi further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: based on a position of the at least one antiphase speaker, control the at least one antiphase speaker to generate at least one of an antiphase sound wave having directivity toward the one or more noise sources and an omnidirectional antiphase sound wave (Nagano figures 1-3; Shi pg. 3, ¶ 0045; pg. 4, ¶ 0052 - ¶ 0053, ¶ 0055; pg. 5, ¶ 0063).
5. Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Nakamura, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2013/0108067 A1 to Schumacher et al. (“Schumacher”).
As to claim 10, Nagano in view of Nakamura discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nagano in view of Nakamura further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a type of a road surface on which the vehicle is being driven through at least one of a vision sensor and the at least one microphone (Nagano pgs. 12-13, ¶ 0012 - ¶ 0013; pg. 24, ¶ 0025), and further discloses determining whether the road is wet or dry (Nagano pgs. 3-4, ¶ 0004), but does not expressly disclose the one or more processors further being configured to measure atmospheric conditions comprising at least one of atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Schumacher, which discloses a similar system, and further discloses the measuring of ambient conditions such as atmospheric pressure, air humidity and ambient temperature, and taking said measurements into account when operating the speaker of an anti-sound control unit (see pg. 4, ¶ 0027; pg. 6, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to allow for corrections on the speaker output based on environmental factors that can affect the operation of the speaker (Schumacher figure 3; pg. 4, ¶ 0026 - ¶ 0027; pg. 6, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055, ¶ 0061 - ¶ 0062).
As to claim 11, Nagano in view of Nakamura and Schumacher further discloses wherein the type of the road surface comprises at least two of asphalt road surface, concrete road surface, sand road surface, gravel road surface, and natural ground (Nagano pgs. 3-4, ¶ 0004; pg. 13, ¶ 0013).
As to claim 12, Nagano in view of Nakamura and Schumacher further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to measure a driving speed of the vehicle (Nagano pg. 15, ¶ 0016; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018; Schumacher pg. 4, ¶ 0027; pg. 6, ¶ 0054).
As to claim 14, Nagano in view of Nakamura and Schumacher further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: measure atmospheric conditions (Schumacher pg. 4, ¶ 0027; pg. 6, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055), and measure the driving speed while the vehicle is being driven (Nagano pg. 15, ¶ 0016; pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018; Schumacher pg. 4, ¶ 0027; pg. 6, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055), but does not expressly disclose measuring the atmospheric conditions based on the vehicle being at a standstill after being started. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Nagano in view of Nakamura and Schumacher, the motivation being to provide said measurements after the system has been powered on to provide a model of the loudspeaker, which can then be used to predict future thermal loads and conditions of the speaker during operation (Schumacher pg. 6, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055).
6. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Nakamura, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2018/0286378 A1 to Shinno et al. (“Shinno”).
As to claim 24, Nagano in view of Nakamura discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23.
Nagano in view of Nakamura does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle noise cancelling method further comprises: updating the database based on the measured parameters being different from the parameter model stored in the database by at least a predetermined threshold. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Shinno, which discloses a similar system, and further discloses the controller can update the noise-cancelling database based on new data and variations greater than a predetermined amount (see figure 2; pg. 2, ¶ 0025; pg. 3, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0037 - ¶ 0038). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to improve the noise cancelling effect of the system based on continuous use and up-to-date data on the detected travel conditions (Shinno pg. 2, ¶ 0025; pg. 3, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0037 - ¶ 0038).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claims 1, 18 and 22, Applicant argues that Nagano “does not provide any information that discloses or suggests the above-described dynamic/static noise classification or movement-speed-based pitch correction,” and further that Nagano “merely describes a vehicle driving environment and surrounding conditions at a general level,” thus “Nagano only discloses correcting a reference cancellation signal because noise varies depending on vehicle speed and steering angle, and has no relevance to distinguishing whether the noise is static noise or dynamic noise,” nor does it “disclose or suggest adaptive pitch correction for such dynamic noise according to the movement speed thereof.”
Regarding Nakamura, Applicant argues that “Nakamura is substantially similar to Nagano,” however “Nakamura does not teach or suggest classifying noise as dynamic versus static, nor does it teach a pitch correction occurring based of the detected noise being the dynamic noise.” At best, “Nakamura provides only a generic indication that sound can be corrected based on speed, but Nakamura does not disclose or suggest any correction of pitch of a produced antiphase sound wave according to a speed at which the vehicle moves from a location at which noise is generated as recited in claim 1.”
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., classifying noise as dynamic versus static) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That is, the claims do not recite or describe a classification process for the detected noise, nor do they recite how such a classification would be achieved.
Nagano discloses detecting noise via a microphone as claimed, and further discloses various sound signals or noises, including noise that changes based on vehicle speed and steering angle and is captured once the tire contacts the road surface (see pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018). Nagano also discloses examples of detecting sounds that are not related to the movement of the vehicle, such as sound waves related to the road surface that are captured before the tire contacts the road surface (see figures 1-3; pg. 13, ¶ 0013). Based on the detected sounds that change depending on vehicle speed and steering angle, i.e. dynamic sounds generated when the tire actually contacts the road, an antiphase sound wave is corrected in order to cancel the detected sounds (see pg. 13, ¶ 0013; pgs. 15-16, ¶ 0016; pgs. 17-19, ¶ 0018 - ¶ 0019; pg. 22, ¶ 0023).
While Nagano discloses correcting the intensity, phase, etc. of the cancellation wave using the obtained noise that changes as the vehicle moves, it does not disclose wherein based on the detected noise being the dynamic noise, correct a pitch of the produced antiphase sound wave according to a speed at which the vehicle moves from a location at which the noise is generated. Nakamura is therefore relied on for disclosing a similar noise cancelling system for a vehicle, and further disclosing the noise cancelling device being configured to change the pitch of the cancellation sound based on the speed at which the vehicle moves (see pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046 of the English translation). The claimed invention is therefore considered obvious given the combined teachings of Nagano and Nakamura, as adjusting the pitch based on the speed at which the vehicle moves allows for a more appropriate noise cancellation that considers dynamic movement of the noise source (Nakamura pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007; pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Nakamura “describes a static relationship between pitch and current vehicle speed – not a dynamic relationship about an amount of change in the pitch correction amount and a change in vehicle speed to a specific noise generation location,” and further that “Nakamura does not disclose tracking speed changes relative to a noise generation location, adjusting the correction amount in response to such speed changes, or the relationship recited in claim 17 where the pitch after the correction corresponds to the pitch before the correction and the amount of correction.”
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a dynamic relationship about an amount of change in the pitch correction amount and a change in vehicle speed to a specific noise generation location, tracking speed changes relative to a noise generation location) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Nagano in view of Nakamura disclose the changing or correcting of an antiphase signal based on speed and acceleration changes as previously discussed, with noise changing depending on changes in vehicle speed (Nagano pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018; Nakamura pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007) and further specifically discloses that the pitch of the cancellation sounds can be adjusted according to the speed of the vehicle (Nakamura pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007; pgs. 36-37, ¶ 0046), with the speed at which the vehicle is traveling being measured via a speed sensor (Nakamura pg. 17, ¶ 0023).
In addition, Nagano in view of Nakamura inherently teaches the change of speed being a change at which the vehicle moves from the location at which the noise is generated, as it discloses the vehicle moving and the noise being generated as the tire contacts the road. The vehicle continues moving after the tire first contacts the road and the noise is detected, therefore it moves from the location at which the noise is generated, and continues generating and correcting an antiphase signal as the tire continues contacting the road while the vehicle moves in the traveling direction (Nagano figures 1-3; pg. 7, ¶ 0007; pg. 12, ¶ 0012; Nakamura pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0007).
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights