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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (US Pub 2023/0211729).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses a system for customization of on-road sound production for a vehicle, the system comprising:
at least one noise generator supported relative to the vehicle and configured to produce a soundscape in an environment of the vehicle (see abstract, para 0027-0028; also see figs. 1 and 4); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (para 0041-0042; see fig. 5), cause the one or more processors to:
generate the soundscape from at least one sound file also stored in the at least one memory based on at least one of an indication of a user-preferred sound file of a plurality of sounds files stored in the at least one memory or an environmental context surrounding the vehicle (para 0034 – “enable the driver to play a sound effect, pause the current sound effect, and select a difference sound effect to play. A volume slider 212 enables the driver to alter the volume of the sound emitted outside the vehicle 116. An upper portion of the touch screen 184 displays a simulated engine performance dial 216. The simulated engine performance dial 216 displays a current engine RPM and speed of the vehicle 116 that corresponds to the current sound effect being broadcast outside the vehicle 116”; also see para 0036, 0039-0040),
determine whether an operational status of the vehicle is suitable for on-road operation (para 0038 – “when the vehicle 116 is turned on, the wake-up system 196 detects that the vehicle 116 is operating and wakes the wireless sound generator module 112 from the sleep mode. The wireless sound generator module 112 may then broadcast a selected engine sound”; also see para 0015); and
produce, in response to a determination that the operational status of the vehicle is suitable for on-road operation, the soundscape utilizing the at least one noise generator while the operational status of the vehicle is suitable for on-road operation (para 0015, 0027, 0038).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses wherein the generated soundscape is an external soundscape, and the at least one noise generator includes an external speaker configured to produce the external soundscape in an external environment surrounding the vehicle (para 0015, 0027, 0038; figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Jackson discloses wherein the soundscape is generated from at least one of a user-selected or a user-provided sound file of the plurality of sound files (para 0034, 0036, 0040).
Regarding claim 11, Jackson discloses wherein the soundscape is further generated based, at least in part, on an available energy level of the vehicle (para 0037).
Regarding claim 14 and 18, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 2 (external soundscape).
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 7.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US Pub 2023/0211729) in view of Leyerle, James (US Pub 2010/0228434).
Regarding claim 3, Jackson discloses the system of sound production for a vehicle of claim 1.
Jackson does not disclose wherein a sound intensity of the external soundscape exceeds a minimum regulatory requirement by a determined amount.
Leyerle discloses wherein a sound intensity of the external soundscape exceeds a minimum regulatory requirement by a determined amount (para 0029 – “generate an amount of noise corresponding with the predetermined decibel level of the recognized geographic location that the vehicle 12 is currently located.” And para 0068 – “predetermined decibel level (which corresponds with or is above the minimum required noise level)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson with the teachings of Leyerle in order to generate appropriate vehicle noise based on the geographic location in order to comply with the law.
Claims 4-6, 8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US Pub 2023/0211729) in view of Adams, William (US Pub 2023/0410774).
Regarding claim 4, Jackson discloses the system of sound production for a vehicle of claim 1.
Jackson does not disclose wherein the generated soundscape is an internal soundscape, and the at least one noise generator includes an internal noise generator configured to produce the internal soundscape in an internal environment of the vehicle.
Adams discloses wherein the generated soundscape is an internal soundscape, and the at least one noise generator includes an internal noise generator configured to produce the internal soundscape in an internal environment of the vehicle (para 0062 – discloses internal soundscape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson with the teachings of Adams in order to improve safety when placing the vehicle in reverse by causing an external speaker on the car to play the internal soundscape (Adams, para 0062).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson discloses wherein the at least one noise generator further includes an exterior speaker configured to produce an external soundscape in an external environment surrounding the vehicle, and wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
generate the external soundscape from the at least one sound file also stored in the at least one memory based on at least one of an indication of a user-preferred external sound file of the plurality of sounds files stored in the at least one memory or the environmental context surrounding the vehicle (see para 0034, 0036, 0039-0040), and
produce, in response to the determination that the operational status of the vehicle is suitable for on-road operation, the external soundscape utilizing the exterior speaker while the operational status of the vehicle is suitable for on-road operation (para 0015, 0027, 0038).
Regarding claim 6, Adams discloses wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
modify or determine a relative balance of a sound intensity of the external soundscape and a sound intensity of the internal soundscape based on at least one of the environmental context surrounding the vehicle or an environmental context of the internal environment of the vehicle (para 0062 – “external soundscape may match the internal soundscape or may comprise different sounds” and “placing the vehicle 170 in reverse causes an external speaker on the car to play the internal soundscape”).
Regarding claim 8, Jackson discloses the system of sound production for a vehicle of claim 1.
Jackson does not disclose wherein the system further comprises at least one external environmental sensor supported relative to the vehicle, and wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
receive data communicated from the at least one external environmental sensor and indicating the environmental context surrounding the vehicle,
wherein the soundscape is generated utilizing an artificial intelligence algorithm and further based on the data communicated from the at least one external environmental sensor.
Adams discloses wherein the system further comprises at least one external environmental sensor supported relative to the vehicle, and wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
receive data communicated from the at least one external environmental sensor and indicating the environmental context surrounding the vehicle (para 0015, 0029, 0040),
wherein the soundscape is generated utilizing an artificial intelligence algorithm and further based on the data communicated from the at least one external environmental sensor (para 0017, 0022, 0037, 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson with the teachings of Adams in order to improve safety when placing the vehicle in reverse by causing an external speaker on the car to play the internal soundscape (Adams, para 0062).
Regarding claim 12, Jackson discloses the system of sound production for a vehicle of claim 1.
Jackson does not disclose wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
identify an occupant profile associated with an occupant of the vehicle;
wherein the occupant profile indicates a desired sound intensity of the soundscape different than at least one of a stock sound intensity or an additional desired sound intensity indicated by an additional occupant profile.
Adams discloses wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
identify an occupant profile associated with an occupant of the vehicle (para 0030);
wherein the occupant profile indicates a desired sound intensity of the soundscape different than at least one of a stock sound intensity or an additional desired sound intensity indicated by an additional occupant profile (para 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson with the teachings of Adams in order to improve safety when placing the vehicle in reverse by causing an external speaker on the car to play the internal soundscape (Adams, para 0062).
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 8 (AI features).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US Pub 2023/0211729) in view of Pan, Davis (US Pub 2012/0062391).
Regarding claim 9, Jackson discloses the system of sound production for a vehicle of claim 1.
Jackson does not disclose wherein generating the soundscape based on the environmental context surrounding the vehicle comprises modifying at least one of a sound intensity or a pitch of the soundscape based on the environmental context surrounding the vehicle.
Pan discloses wherein generating the soundscape based on the environmental context surrounding the vehicle comprises modifying at least one of a sound intensity or a pitch of the soundscape based on the environmental context surrounding the vehicle (para 0006, 0013, 0015, 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson with the teachings of Pan in order to generate warning sounds that are sufficient to be perceived by pedestrians and others in the path of the vehicle without being too loud (Pan, para 0014).
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US Pub 2023/0211729) in view of Adams, William (US Pub 2023/0410774) and in further view of Kim, Ki-Man (US Pub 2018/0162271).
Regarding claim 10, Jackson view of Adams discloses the system of sound production for a vehicle of claim 1.
Jackson view of Adams does not disclose wherein the sound intensity is modified based, at least in part, on a proximity of a pedestrian relative to the vehicle.
Kim discloses wherein the sound intensity is modified based, at least in part, on a proximity of a pedestrian relative to the vehicle (para 0029-0030, para 0054-0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson view of Adams with the teachings of Kim in order to adjust the volume of the output warning sounds based on the distance between the pedestrian and the vehicle (Kim, para 0054).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US Pub 2023/0211729) in view of Gallagher et al. (US Pub 2019/0332902).
Regarding claim 13, Jackson discloses the system of sound production for a vehicle of claim 1.
Jackson does not disclose wherein the system further comprises at least one internal environmental sensor supported relative to the vehicle, and wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
receive data communicated from the at least one internal environmental sensor and indicating at least one characteristic of an occupant of the vehicle,
wherein the soundscape is generated utilizing an artificial intelligence algorithm and further based on the data indicating the at least one characteristic of the occupant.
Gallagher discloses wherein the system further comprises at least one internal environmental sensor supported relative to the vehicle, and wherein the instructions executed by one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
receive data communicated from the at least one internal environmental sensor and indicating at least one characteristic of an occupant of the vehicle (see abstract; para 0064-0065),
wherein the soundscape is generated utilizing an artificial intelligence algorithm and further based on the data indicating the at least one characteristic of the occupant (see abstract; 0042, 0062, 0108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson with the teachings of Gallagher in order to play soothing sounds when the emotional state of the vehicle occupant exceeds a threshold (Gallagher, para 0042).
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights