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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been entered into the record.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the drawings and the specification overcome the drawing and specification objections from the previous office action (4/15/2026). The drawing and specification objections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 16 overcomes the claim objection from the previous office action (4/15/2026). The claim objection is withdrawn.
The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) remains as recited in the previous office action (4/15/2026), and is recited below in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 regarding the 112a and 112b rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 4, 9 and 16 thru 20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see below). In the interpretation of claims 1, 4, 9 and 20, the specification provides sufficient structure for interpreting the claim limitations. These claims are not rejected based on the invoking of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Only claims 16 thru 19 have been rejected based on the invoking of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claims 16 thru 19 are method steps and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) based on the claim language of “a step of [receiving/executing/determining/deactivating/outputting]. The claims lack any structure that performs the “steps of”, such as “by a processor”. Because claims 16 thru 19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and do not provide any structure to perform the claimed “steps of”, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 16 thru 19 are maintained.
Regarding the additional 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1 thru 20, these rejections are antecedent basis issues. These rejections were not addressed in the arguments or by any amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1 thru 20 are maintained.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the amended specification P[0370], the phrase “escape location P2 in area P2” should be “escape location P2 in area F”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a noise control module that controls in claim 1; output through a first output module and output through a second output module in claim 4; an audio output part operating to provide information in claim 9; a step of executing, a step of additionally executing, a step of determining and a step of deactivating in claim 16; a step of executing in claim 17; a step of outputting in claims 18 and 19; and an interface unit that performs communication in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The noise control module is interpreted as a controller processor (specification P[0224]). The first output module is interpreted as a display inside the vehicle P[0318]. The second output module is interpreted as an external speaker or lamp on the exterior of the vehicle P[0319]. The audio output part is interpreted as at least one speaker P[0095]. The steps of executing, additionally executing, determining, deactivating, and outputting do not recite any structure clearly indicate what is performing the steps (unlike the step of receiving by a processor in the vehicle of claim 16). The interface unit is interpreted as a connection port to other devices P0210].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 thru 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “steps of” executing, additionally executing, determining, deactivating, and outputting do not provide a structure for performing the claimed steps. Because of the claim language “a step of…”, the claims are subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see above). The examiner notes that the “step of receiving” includes a processor in the vehicle performing the step and is not subject to this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claim 16 thru 19 limitations “steps of executing, additionally executing, determining, deactivating, and outputting” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claimed “steps of” executing, additionally executing, determining, deactivating, and outputting do not provide a structure for performing the claimed steps. The examiner notes that the “step of receiving” includes a processor in the vehicle performing the step and is not subject to this rejection. Therefore, the claims 16 thru 19 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1 thru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exterior" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vicinity" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the result" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites, “a result of monitoring by the first sensor” in line 3 and in line 5, while claim 1 recites, “the result of the monitoring by the first sensor” in line 11. It is unclear if this is a new result or the same result. The examiner assumes it is the same result for continued examination.
Claim 2 recites, “an occupant” in line 3, while claim 1 recites, “a vehicle occupant” in line 2. It is unclear if this is a new occupant or the same occupant. The examiner assumes it is the same occupant for continued examination, and that a vehicle occupant is the same as the occupant. The examiner notes that “the occupant” is recited in claims 2 thru 4, and these should be “the vehicle occupant” to match the language of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the density" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the current location" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the time" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the location" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if “the location” should be “the current location”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the type of the object" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the behavioral category" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the extent" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites, “a display and an audio output part, which are provided in the vehicle“ (lines 3 and 4), and “the audio output part, the display, or the lamp, each of which is provided on the exterior of the vehicle” (lines 6 and 7). It is unclear how the display and the audio output part can be both in the vehicle and on the exterior of the vehicle. The examiner assumes the display or audio output part may be either, in the vehicle, or on the exterior of the vehicle, for continued examination.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the direction of sound" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the risk sensitivity" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the corresponding object" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the corresponding object" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the movement" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the vicinity" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the result" in lines 9 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites, “a result of monitoring by the first sensor” in line 4, and in line 7, while claim 16 recites, “the result of the monitoring by the first sensor” in lines 9 and 10. It is unclear if this is a new result or the same result. The examiner assumes it is the same result for continued examination.
Claim 17 recites, “the occupant” in lines 4 and 5, while claim 16 recites, “a vehicle occupant” in line 5. It is unclear if this is the same occupant as the vehicle occupant. The examiner assumes it is the same occupant for continued examination, and that a vehicle occupant is the same as the occupant. The examiner notes that “the occupant” is recited in claims 17 and 18, and these should be “the vehicle occupant” to match the language of claim 16.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the extent" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the result of the monitoring by the first sensor" in lines 9 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the vicinity" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the result of the monitoring by the second sensor " in lines 14 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 thru 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 16 thru 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reasons for indicating allowable subject matter over the prior art of record are based on the combined limitations of the independent claims 1, 16 and 20 (when the claim limitations are considered as a whole). The combination of limitations include vehicle noise cancellation, sensing and monitoring the state of the occupant, monitoring movement of objects around the vehicle, activating the air conditioning for a parked vehicle, and deactivating the noise cancellation and alerting based on the movement of the object. The closest prior art of record is Jung et al Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0135942 A1. Jung et al disclose a method for automatically controlling an in-cabin environment for a passenger in an autonomous vehicle includes monitoring a state of the passenger via a video sensor. The method further includes determining whether the state of the passenger corresponds to one of preset states of a predetermined number, and adjusting, when the state corresponds to the one of the preset states, any one or any combination of any two or more of a seat, an air conditioning system, a lighting system, a sound system, a variable window tinting, and a variable sunroof of the autonomous vehicle based on the state. The determining of the state of the passenger includes detecting a plurality of determination target objects from a video of the video sensor, cropping an image of each of the plurality of determination target objects, and determining whether the state of the passenger corresponds to the one of the preset states.
In regards to claims 1, 16 and 20, Jung et al taken either individually or in combination with other prior art, fails to teach or render obvious a method of operating a vehicle that includes an interface unit that performs communication with at least one of the components provided in a vehicle, and a processor. The method performs receiving, by the processor provided in the vehicle, a preset user input in a state where the vehicle is parked or stopped, and executing, by the processor, a first operational mode for activating an internal air-conditioning system of the vehicle and a first sensor, and monitoring a state of a vehicle occupant using the first sensor, on the basis of the received user input. The method further performs additionally executing, by the processor, a second operational mode for activating an adaptive noise cancellation (ANC) function equipped in the vehicle and a second sensor and monitoring a movement of an object in a vicinity of the vehicle using the second sensor, on the basis of a result of the monitoring by the first sensor in the first operational mode. The method further performs determining, by the processor, on the basis of the monitoring by the second sensor that the object in the vicinity of the vehicle approaches the vehicle, and deactivating the adaptive noise cancellation (ANC) function and outputting an intervention alert associated with the movement of the object, on the basis of the determination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights