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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “leaning” in line 2. This appears to be a typographical error; it should probably say “learning.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claim 4 is dependent on cancelled claim 3, and claims 5-6 are dependent on claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 15, 18, 20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Application JP 2019-119375 A to Nagano.
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).
As to claim 2, Nagano 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 (see figures 1-4; pgs. 18-19, ¶ 0019 - ¶ 0020).
As to claim 4, Nagano 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 (see figures 1-4).
As to claim 7, Nagano 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 (see pgs. 16-17, ¶ 0017; pgs. 20-21, ¶ 0022).
As to claim 8, Nagano 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 (see pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0008; pgs. 23-24, ¶ 0024).
As to claim 15, Nagano further discloses 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 (see pgs. 17-18, ¶ 0018).
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); and 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).
As to claim 20, Nagano further discloses further comprising storing a parameter model in a database, the parameter model being generated by leaning the measured parameters in advance (see 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); obtaining 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; and 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).
As to claim 23, Nagano 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 (see pgs. 16-17, ¶ 0017; pgs. 20-21, ¶ 0022); and determining the radiation pattern by comparing the measured parameters with the generated parameter model (see pgs. 8-9, ¶ 0008; pgs. 23-24, ¶ 0024).
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) 5-6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of US Patent Pub No 2024/0034463 A1 to Shi et al. (“Shi”).
As to claim 5, Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
Nagado 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, Nagado in view of 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, Nagado in view of 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 (Nagado figures 1-3; Shi pg. 3, ¶ 0045; pg. 4, ¶ 0052 - ¶ 0053, ¶ 0055; pg. 5, ¶ 0063).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of US Patent Pub No 2013/0108067 A1 to Schumacher et al. (“Schumacher”).
As to claim 10, Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nagano 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 (see pgs. 12-13, ¶ 0012 - ¶ 0013; pg. 24, ¶ 0025), and further discloses determining whether the road is wet or dry (see 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 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 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 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 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).
10. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Japanese Application JP 2022-46259 A to Nakamura.
As to claim 16, Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 15.
Nagano does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: 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. 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 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).
11. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of US Patent Pub No 2018/0286378 A1 to Shinno et al. (“Shinno”).
As to claim 24, Nagano discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23.
Nagano 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).
Conclusion
12. 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