DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is the initial office action based on the 18/975,101 application filed December 10, 2024. Claims 1-5 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated December 10, 2024 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: see originally filed Specification, page 4, line 27, Examiner suggests amending “The increase in thew blowing engine rotation speed” to read --The increase in [[thew]] the blowing engine rotation speed--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests amending “after a predetermined time elapses from start of the start sound increase process” to read --after a predetermined time elapses from a start of the start sound increase process--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 is 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.
The term “when the engine is normal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Interpretation
Of note, Claim 1 recites that the mode determination unit “makes an affirmative determination” and the mode determination unit “makes a negative determination”. Examiner is interpreting these limitations in view of the limitation that the mode determination unit determines whether a traveling mode of the vehicle is switched to a circuit mode or not. In other words, Examiner is interpreting Claim 1 wherein the mode determination unit makes an affirmative determination that the traveling mode is switched to a circuit mode, or a negative determination that the traveling mode has not switched to the circuit mode.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlow, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,365,158, herein “Barlow”) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,175,962, herein “Kim”) and further in view of Omote et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,712,615, herein “Omote”) and Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”).
Regarding Claim 1, Barlow discloses a control device (24) for a vehicle (see Abstract), wherein the control device includes a mode determination unit (32) configured to determine whether a first mode of the vehicle is switched to a different mode or not (see column 3, lines 13-35, listing various modes, and column 4, lines 6-42, engine sound enhancement (ESE) module (38) receives transition signal (50) when modes are changed). Barlow discloses that the control system (10) may enhance specific tones or sounds that are emitted by the engine (30) based on the vehicle selected mode (see column 3 lines 25-35) and will emit a tonal or rough engine sound through the transducer (28), which gives the vehicle occupants the impression of a relatively powerful engine (see column 33, lines 31-35). Barlow does not specifically describe modulating a sound during the engine start process.
However, Kim discloses an apparatus (100) having a detection device that detects driving information and drive mode setting information and a processing device electrically connected with the detection device (see Abstract), wherein apparatus (100) may adjust and output at least one of volume, a tone, or a sound image of a vehicle sound based on at least one of driving information or drive mode setting information, such as a start on and off sound (see column 4, lines 42-57).
Further, Omote discloses an artificial engine sound control unit which controls an artificial engine sound emitted from a sounding body wherein the artificial engine sound generating part detects such that the electric vehicle comes close to a start running mode (see Abstract). Specifically, Omote discloses that a c:start region and the d:acceleration region are regions where the volume and the sound quality of the artificial engine sound changes with increasing/decreasing of vehicle speed or acceleration. Regarding a vehicle driven by an engine, acceleration is usually made immediately after the running is started, therefore, the engine sound is large. So, in the c:start region, until any predetermined time is elapsed after the running is started, the volume is made to be higher than that of the artificial engine sound which is generated at the same speed in the d:acceleration region (see column 15, lines 17-35). Volume is therefore modified when transitioning to the start region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle sound control device of Barlow to increase engine start sound volume when a performance driving mode is selected, as taught by Kim, in view of the start sound volume adjustment as disclosed in Omote in order to enhance driver perception and feedback during performance-oriented operation of the vehicle.
Moreover, AAPA discloses that it is well known in the art of engine control to switch specifically between a traveling mode and a circuit mode (see originally filed disclosure, paragraph [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, various references are cited that provide detail of relevant engine control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G MOUBRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM - 6:30PM.
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, Lindsay M. Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747