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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on September 18th, 2024
Claims 1- 5are pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch et al., US PG PUB# 2010/0057465 A1 in view of Tzirkel-Hancock et al., US PG PUB# 2013/0185066 A1.
As for independent claim 1:
Kirsch discloses a voice control apparatus comprising a controller configured to:
detect a speed of a vehicle (0009, 0022, Kirsch discloses vehicle speed sensor that sends the current speed of the vehicle to the TTS control engine);
Kirsch does not disclose set a frequency of voice output for an occupant of the vehicle higher as the detected speed increases. Tzirkel-Hancock discloses set a frequency of voice output for an occupant of the vehicle higher as the detected speed increases in 0027, 0072, 0076-0077. In the cited sections Tzirkel-Hancock discloses that audio prompt pitch of the voice output to the occupant is altered based on noise level parameters such as from vehicle speed sensor. The pitch "may be shifted higher if noise level parameter 304 is high than if noise level parameter 304 is medium or low". Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the apparatus of Kirsch to incorporate the adjustment of sound based on speed of a vehicle as taught by Tzirkel-Hancock, thus allow adjusting higher or lower pitch to indicate sound difference to the occupant (Tzirkel-Hancock, 0027, 0072).
As for dependent claim 2:
Kirsch - Tzirkel-Hancock discloses the voice control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: set the frequency of the voice output within a female frequency band in a case in which the speed exceeds a threshold previously determined; and set the frequency of the voice output within a male frequency band in a case in which the speed is equal to or less than the threshold (Kirsch, 0010, 0029-0030, Kirsch discloses adjusting the TTS pitch (voice output frequency) to a higher value when speed exceeds a threshold is met and adjust to a lower value when speed is at or below the threshold. Kirsch further discloses gender of the voice adjustments from the tuning module based on vehicle operating parameters. Tzirkel-Hancock discloses two-band frequency selection in 0076–0077).
As for dependent claim 3:
Kirsch - Tzirkel-Hancock discloses the voice control apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface configured to receive information for the occupant of the vehicle from outside the vehicle, wherein the voice output includes voice output that reads out the information received by the communication interface (Kirsch, 0004, discloses receiving critical emergency broadcasts, and placing telephone calls. Kirsch further discloses directing messages from external sources to vehicle occupants through speakers in 0022-0023).
As for dependent claim 4:
Kirsch - Tzirkel-Hancock discloses the voice control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, upon detecting that it is raining outside the vehicle, increase volume of the voice output (Kirsch, 0009, 0025, 0030, discloses detecting changes in weather and adjust volume of voice output accordingly through the TTS tuning module).
As for dependent claim 5:
Kirsch - Tzirkel-Hancock discloses the voice control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, upon detecting that a window of the vehicle is open, increase volume of the voice output (Kirsch, 0022, discloses window up/down sensor 212 may indicate increased interior noise levels and increased distraction of the driver. Kirsch further discloses that TTS voice volume is set higher by the TTS tuning module under increased interior noise conditions inferred from such sensors 0026 and 0031).
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights