DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9-20 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 9 recites “at least a pair of vehicle speakers configured to transmit binaural audio signals to the associated occupant at perceived at a plurality of virtual locations through a vehicle cabin”. Which makes it confusing as to what applicant is trying to claim specifically.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the associated occupant" in line 3, “the plurality of locations” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the virtual location" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner, has try his best to reject the independent claim using the specification, to further prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6, 10-14 and 17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 1-2, 8, 13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polisson US PG-Pub 2018/0050698 in view of Grani US PG-Pub 2023/0138757.
Regarding claim 1, Polisson teaches at least one vehicle speaker arranged in a vehicle around an occupant and configured to transmit audio signals to the associated occupant, the at least one vehicle speaker including a pair of speakers configured to provide binaural audio signals to the associated occupant (Fig. 2 & [0026] & [0055]: pair to loudspeaker-205 to provide stereo/surround/or other multiple-speaker feature [like binaural], audio to the occupants); at least one visual indicator arranged within a vehicle cabin at a first location and configured to provide a visual cue to the occupant (Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector, that will highlight the location of the danger); a processor programmed to: instruct the speaker to emit an audio signal perceived at the first location (Fig. 2 & [0055]: output auditory cues from the location of where the danger is located); instruct the at least one visual indicator to concurrently illuminate with the audio signal to provide visual reinforcement to the occupant that the audio signal perceived is associated with the first location (Fig. 2 & [0051]: vehicle will alert driver to danger using one or more visual or auditory cues [so if danger from the left, you will have a visual highlight of the danger on the left and audio will come from the left side as well]).
Polisson failed to teach one vehicle speaker arranged in a vehicle headrest behind an occupant.
However, Grani teaches one vehicle speaker arranged in a vehicle headrest behind an occupant (Fig. 3 & [0082]: providing spatial cue in a vehicle using stereo loudspeakers or headrest loudspeakers).
Polisson and Grani are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because using headrest loudspeakers are an alternate equivalent way to provide spatial audio to occupants on a vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Polisson teaches wherein audio signal includes at least one alert signal and speech signal ([0055]-[0056]: the auditory cues can be a chime and synthesized speech warning).
Regarding claim 8, Polisson teaches wherein the illuminator is a screen (Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector, that will highlight the location of the danger).
Regarding claim 13, Polisson teaches at least one vehicle speaker arranged in a vehicle around an occupant and configured to transmit audio signals to the associated occupant, the at least one vehicle speaker including a pair of speakers configured to provide binaural audio signals to the associated occupant (Fig. 2 & [0026] & [0055]: pair to loudspeaker-205 to provide stereo/surround/or other multiple-speaker feature [like binaural], audio to the occupants); at least one infotainment display device arranged within the vehicle cabin and configured to provide visual confirmation to a user associated with the virtual location (Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector or built-in display, that will highlight the location of the danger); a processor programmed to: instruct the speaker to emit an audio signal perceived at a first location (Fig. 2 & [0055]: output auditory cues from the location of where the danger is located); instruct the at least one infotainment device to highlight a first location thereon associated with the perceived location to provide visual reinforcement to the occupant that the audio signal perceived is associated with the first location (Fig. 2 & [0051]: vehicle will alert driver to danger using one or more visual or auditory cues [so if danger from the left, you will have a visual highlight of the danger on the left and audio will come from the left side as well]).
Polisson failed to teach one vehicle speaker arranged in a vehicle headrest behind an occupant.
However, Grani teaches one vehicle speaker arranged in a vehicle headrest behind an occupant (Fig. 3 & [0082]: providing spatial cue in a vehicle using stereo loudspeakers or headrest loudspeakers).
Polisson and Grani are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because using headrest loudspeakers are an alternate equivalent way to provide spatial audio to occupants on a vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Polisson teaches wherein the display device is a heads up display ([0053]-[0054]: head-up display).
Regarding claim 19, Polisson teaches wherein the display device is arranged in a dashboard visible by the occupant ([0053]: dashboard display).
Claim 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polisson US PG-Pub 2018/0050698 in combination with Grani US PG-Pub 2023/0138757 in view of Lavoie US PG-Pub 2018/0029591.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the alert signal includes chime (Polisson, [0055]-[0056]: the auditory cues can be a chime and synthesized speech warning).
The combination failed to teach sequential noise bursts.
However, Lavoie teaches sequential noise bursts ([0031]: alert using short burst pattern).
The combination and Lavoie are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely alert for vehicles. Therefore, 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, because using burst pattern in an alternate equivalent way to alert a person of an event.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches display device (Polisson, [0053]-[0054]: having display either a HUD or in dashboard or the windshield to provide information).
The combination failed to teach wherein the display device is a mobile user device.
However, Lavoie teaches display device is a mobile user device ([0031]-[0032]: providing warning and alert through a mobile device of a user).
The combination and Lavoie are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely alert for vehicles. Therefore, 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, because providing information on a mobile phone display instead of the HUD or display on dashboard or the windshield is just an alternate equivalent device that information can be provided on.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polisson US PG-Pub 2018/0050698 in combination with Grani US PG-Pub 2023/0138757 in view of Nakayama US PG-Pub 2015/0258930.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the speech signal includes audible speech instructions (Polisson, [0055]-[0056]: the auditory cues can be a chime and synthesized speech warning).
The combination failed to teach audible speech instruction indicating the first location.
However, Nakayama teaches audible speech instruction indicating the first location (Fig. 3 & [0111]-[0112]: virtual sound source coming from the right and stating ‘comes from the right’).
The combination and Nakayama are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely alert for vehicles. Therefore, 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, because providing virtual sound from right and stating right, is providing extra feedback as to where the sound is coming from.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polisson US PG-Pub 2018/0050698 in combination with Grani US PG-Pub 2023/0138757 in view of Shimizu US PG-Pub 2016/0144785.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the illuminator is a display (Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector, that will highlight the location of the danger).
The combination failed to teach illuminator is a light.
However, Shimizu teaches illuminator is a light (Fig. 5b: having LED lights as illuminator).
The combination and Shimizu are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely warning device in vehicle. Therefore, 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, because using lights is an alternate equivalent way to provide a visual cue.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polisson US PG-Pub 2018/0050698 in view of Yang US PG-Pub 2025/0371773.
Regarding claim 9, Polisson teaches at least a pair of vehicle speakers configured to transmit binaural audio signals to the associated occupant at perceived at a plurality of virtual locations throughout a vehicle cabin (Fig. 2 & [0026] & [0055]: pair to loudspeaker-205 to provide stereo/surround/or other multiple-speaker feature [like binaural], audio to the driver (left location) or passenger (right location)); at least one visual indicator in the vehicle cabin, the visual indicator configured to provide a visual cue to the occupant at the respective location (Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector, that will highlight the location of the danger; [the windshield goes across from the left where the driver is seating, all the way to the right where the passenger is seating, so if a danger is highlighted on the left of the windshield (driver side) that is one location, if danger is highlighted on the right of the windshield (passenger side) that is a second location); a processor programmed to: instruct the speakers to emit an audio signal perceived at a first one of the virtual locations (Fig. 2 & [0055]: output auditory cues from the location of where the danger is located on the left (driver side) or right (passenger side)); instruct the at least one visual indicator associated with the first one of the virtual locations to concurrently illuminate with the emitting of the audio signal to provide visual reinforcement to the occupant that the audio signal perceived is associated with the first location (Fig. 2 & [0051]: vehicle will alert driver to danger using one or more visual or auditory cues [so if danger from the left, you will have a visual highlight of the danger on the left and audio will come from the left side as well]).
Polisson failed to teach one visual indicator arranged at each of the plurality of locations throughout the vehicle cabin.
However, Yang teaches one visual indicator arranged at each of the plurality of locations throughout the vehicle cabin (Fig. 2: having display that can provide visual information at a plurality of location within the vehicle cabin).
Polisson and Yang are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices in vehicle. Therefore, 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, because having a visual device at different location in the vehicle allows to provide visual information at every location where there is a possible passenger.
Claim 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polisson US PG-Pub 2018/0050698 in combination with Grani US PG-Pub 2023/0138757 in view of Rakshit US Pat 11,307,825.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches wherein the highlighted first location at the display device includes a highlight indicating the first location relative to the occupant (Polisson, Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector, that will highlight the location of the danger).
The combination failed to teach an icon.
However, Rakshit teaches an icon (Fig. 2 & Col. 6 line 62- Col. 7 line 7: a display showing icon of the location of the sound sources).
The combination and Rakshit are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely vehicle display. Therefore, 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, because having icons showing location of sound sources helps to provide visual cue of where sound is coming from.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches wherein the highlighted first location at the display device includes a highlight indicating the first location relative to the occupant (Polisson, Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector, that will highlight the location of the danger).
The combination failed to teach an object trajectory indicating the first location relative to the occupant along a horizontal and vertical plane.
However, Rakshit teaches an object trajectory indicating the first location relative to the occupant along a horizontal and vertical plane (Fig. 2 & Col. 6 line 62- Col. 7 line 7: a display showing icon of object trajectory using an arrow of the location of the sound sources).
The combination and Rakshit are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely vehicle display. Therefore, 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, because having icons showing location of sound sources helps to provide visual cue of where sound is coming from.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polisson US PG-Pub 2018/0050698 in combination with Grani US PG-Pub 2023/0138757 in view of Yang US PG-Pub 2025/0371773.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the at least one infotainment display device being used for separate locations (Fig. 2 & [0053]-[0054]: the vehicle windshield-201 is used as a screen/projector, that will highlight the location of the danger; [the windshield goes across from the left where the driver is seating, all the way to the right where the passenger is seating, so if a danger is highlighted on the left of the windshield (driver side) that is one location, if danger is highlighted on the right of the windshield (passenger side) that is a second location).
The combination failed to teach a plurality of display devices arranged throughout the cabin, each associated with an one of a plurality of locations.
However, Yang teaches a plurality of display devices arranged throughout the cabin, each associated with an one of a plurality of locations ((Fig. 2: having display that can provide visual information at a plurality of location within the vehicle cabin).
The combination and Yang are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices in vehicle. Therefore, 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, because having a visual device at different location in the vehicle allows to provide visual information at every location where there is a possible passenger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights