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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on December 12, 2024. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to the PCT filing of Application No. PCT/JP2023/011116, filed on March 22, 2023. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 12, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 100 for an information presentation device is not in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea, such as determining audio information relating to vehicle sounds by determining the acceleration signals of the vehicle, which constitutes a mathematical concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only generating the audio information by determining the natural frequency band of the audio information and filtering certain frequencies.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an information presentation device (i.e. a machine). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of a) an abstract idea, b) a law of nature, or c) a natural phenomenon.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions represent an “abstract idea”; and where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 1 recites the following:
An information presentation device comprising:
one or more speakers configured to present an occupant of a vehicle with audio information;
one or more acceleration detectors configured to respectively output one or more acceleration signals respectively indicating longitudinal acceleration rates of one or more unsprung components that make relative displacements to a vehicle body of the vehicle in accordance with respective strokes of one or more suspensions that respectively support one or more wheels of the vehicle; and
a processor configured to perform filter processing with a predetermined frequency band on the one or more acceleration signals and
output one or more resultant signals as one or more driving signals respectively to the one or more speakers.
Regarding the limitation of “perform …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of an abstract idea, comprising filtering audio frequencies to present audio information to an occupant, which comprises a mathematical concept. A person listen for sounds inside and outside the vehicle to determine how the vehicle is operating.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “a processor …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation uses a generic computer (a processor) to perform the functions of the claims.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “present …”, and “output …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The limitation of “one or more acceleration detectors …”, amounts to extra-solution data gathering, and the relative location thereof on the vehicle merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/ use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Analysis of Step 2B is performed to determine if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and further analysis is required for all functions that are identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Presenting and outputting audio data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere outputting audio data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function of a speaker, when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The specification also demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of additional elements as it describes these elements as well-understood, routine, or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available produce, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describer the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The functions of the one or more acceleration detectors also amounts to extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Dependent Claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-3 recite the use of acceleration detectors which measure the unsprung mass of the components of the vehicle, which constitutes a further characterization of the field of use of the sensors. Claims 4-7 recite features of acceleration signal processor, which is a further characterization of the field of use of the processor for filtering of the audio signal.
Therefore, dependent Claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-7 of U.S. Application No. 18/978,076, to Sawada, et al (hereinafter referred to as Sawada-076). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 of each application teaches 1) an information presentation device, 2) one or more speakers, 3) one or more acceleration detectors, 4) output one or more acceleration signals, 5) a processor, and 6) perform filter processing. Claims 2-7 of each application further teaches: 1) one or more wheels, speakers, unsprung components, acceleration signals, 2) presenting the occupant of the vehicle with the audio information with sound image localization around the occupant’s headrest, 3) emphasizing a predetermined frequency band, and 4) the predetermined frequency band is a vibration frequency of the tires.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-5 of U.S. Application No. 18/978,086, to Sawada, et al (hereinafter referred to as Sawada-086). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 of each application teaches 1) an information presentation device, 2) one or more speakers, 3) one or more acceleration detectors, 4) output one or more acceleration signals, 5) a processor, and 6) perform filter processing. Claims 2-7 of the instant application and Claims 2-5 of Sawada-086 further teaches: 1) one or more wheels, speakers, unsprung components, acceleration signals, 2) presenting the occupant of the vehicle with the audio information with sound image localization around the occupant’s headrest, 3) emphasizing a predetermined frequency band, and 4) the predetermined frequency band is a vibration frequency of the tires.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. H06109066 A, to Nakao, et al (hereinafter referred to as Nakao).
As per Claim 1, Nakao discloses the features of an information presentation device (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “The above casing 3 …”; where the vehicle comprises a plurality of speakers, which provide output to a user) comprising:
one or more speakers configured to present an occupant of a vehicle with audio information (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “The above casing 3 …”; where the vehicle comprises a plurality of speakers, which provide output to a user);
one or more acceleration detectors (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, part of each …” and Paragraph beginning with “Figure 3 shows …”; where the acceleration sensors detect the road surface vibrations of a vehicle) configured to respectively
output one or more acceleration signals (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, part of each …”; Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “Further, 29 accelerator position …”; where the output signal of the vibrations from the road surface to the vehicle body detected by the acceleration sensor is input to the control arithmetic unit) respectively
indicating longitudinal acceleration rates of one or more unsprung components that make relative displacements to a vehicle body of the vehicle in accordance with respective strokes of one or more suspensions (e.g. Page 8, Paragraph beginning with “Incidentally, the acceleration sensor …”; where the acceleration sensor may be installed on the wheel side portion of the suspension (so-called unsprung portion) so the vehicle can accurately detect the road surface vibrations based on acceleration values) that respectively
support one or more wheels of the vehicle (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, …”; where each part of the suspension supports the left and right wheels in the vehicle body); and
a processor (e.g. Page 2, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the reference signal …”; where the reference signal is input to a computing unit) configured to
perform filter processing with a predetermined frequency band on the one or more acceleration signals (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “Figure 3 shows …”; where a low pass filter filters low frequency components of the amplified acceleration signal) and
output one or more resultant signals as one or more driving signals respectively to the one or more speakers (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “The control arithmetic unit 25, …”; where the speaker is controlled by the control signal after outputting the signal; and where the acceleration signal is detected by the acceleration sensor, and output to the control arithmetic unit, which generates a control signal for controlling the speaker to reduce the vibrations of the vehicle).
As per Claim 3, Nakao discloses the features of Claim 1, and Nakao further discloses the features of wherein the vehicle comprises
a four-wheel vehicle with a right front wheel, a left front wheel, a right rear wheel, and a left rear wheel wheels (e.g. Figure 1; where each part of the suspension supports the left and right wheels in the vehicle body), the one or more acceleration detectors are configured to
respectively output the one or more acceleration signals of the one or more unsprung components provided on the right front wheel, the left front wheel, the right rear wheel, and the left rear wheel (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, part of each …”; Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “Further, 29 accelerator position …”; where the output signal of the vibrations from the road surface to the vehicle body detected by the acceleration sensor is input to the control arithmetic unit),
the one or more speakers comprise a plurality of speakers (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “The above casing 3 …”; where the vehicle comprises a plurality of speakers, which provide output to a user), and
the speakers are configured to present the occupant of the vehicle with the audio information in accordance with the one or more acceleration signals of the one or more unsprung components provided on the right front wheel, the left front wheel, the right rear wheel, and the left rear wheel, with sound image localization right frontward, left frontward, right rearward, and left rearward of a headrest of a driver’s seat of the vehicle (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “The above casing 3 …”; Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “The control arithmetic unit 25, …”; where the speaker is controlled by the control signal after outputting the signal; and where the acceleration signal is detected by the acceleration sensor, and output to the control arithmetic unit, which generates a control signal for controlling the speaker to reduce the vibrations of the vehicle; and where the speakers may be placed before the headrest portion, the rear seat side relative to the reference signal location).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claim 5, Nakao discloses the features of Claims 1 and 2, respectively, and Nakao further discloses the features of wherein the processor comprises
an acceleration signal processor configured to generate the audio information from the one or more acceleration signals (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, part of each …” and Paragraph beginning with “Figure 3 shows …”; where the speaker is controlled by the control signal after outputting the signal; and where the acceleration signal is detected by the acceleration sensor, and output to the control arithmetic unit, which generates a control signal for controlling the speaker to reduce the vibrations of the vehicle),
with emphasis on a component of the predetermined frequency band over components of other frequency bands (e.g. Page 2, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the reference signal …”; Page 7, Paragraph beginning with “Accordingly, in this embodiment …”; where the calculation unit updates and optimizes filter coefficients to amplify the getting gain vibration signals so update the reference signal and output a control signal which cancels the engine noise and reduce vibrations (i.e. sets preferences for certain frequencies)).
As per Claim 6, and similarly for Claim 7, Nakao discloses the features of Claims 4 and 5, respectively, and Nakao further discloses the features of wherein the acceleration signal processor is configured to emphasize a frequency band including a natural frequency of torsional vibration of one or more tires of the vehicle, over other frequency bands (e.g. Page 2, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the reference signal …”; Page 7, Paragraph beginning with “Accordingly, in this embodiment …”; where the calculation unit updates and optimizes filter coefficients to amplify the getting gain vibration signals so update the reference signal and output a control signal which cancels the engine noise so as to reduce vibrations (i.e. sets preferences for certain frequencies)).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. H06109066 A, to Nakao, et al (hereinafter referred to as Nakao), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0332386 A1, to Toda, et al (hereinafter referred to as Toda).
As per Claim 2, Nakao discloses the features of Claim 1, and Nakao further discloses the features of wherein
the one or more wheels comprise a plurality of wheels (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, …”; where each part of the suspension supports the left and right wheels in the vehicle body),
the one or more speakers comprise a plurality of speakers (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “The above casing 3 …”; where the vehicle comprises a plurality of speakers, which provide output to a user),
the one or more unsprung components comprise a plurality of unsprung components vehicle (e.g. Page 8, Paragraph beginning with “Incidentally, the acceleration sensor …”; where the acceleration sensor may be installed on the wheel side portion of the suspension (so-called unsprung portion) so the vehicle can accurately detect the road surface vibrations based on acceleration value; and where each part of the suspension supports the left and right wheels in the vehicle body),
the one or more acceleration signals comprise a plurality of acceleration signals (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, part of each …” and Paragraph beginning with “Figure 3 shows …”; where the output signal of the vibrations from the road surface to the vehicle body detected by the acceleration sensor is input to the control arithmetic unit; and where each vibration detection unit detects the vibration information of each of detectors, such as the acceleration sensors),
the one or more acceleration detectors are configured to respectively output the acceleration signals of the unsprung components provided on the wheels respectively (e.g. Page 4, Paragraph beginning with “In addition, part of each …”; Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “Further, 29 accelerator position …”; where the output signal of the vibrations from the road surface to the vehicle body detected by the acceleration sensor is input to the control arithmetic unit), and
the speakers are configured to present the occupant of the vehicle with the audio information in accordance with the acceleration signals detected at the unsprung components (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “The control arithmetic unit 25, …”; where the speaker is controlled by the control signal after outputting the signal; and where the acceleration signal is detected by the acceleration sensor, and output to the control arithmetic unit, which generates a control signal for controlling the speaker to reduce the vibrations of the vehicle),
with sound image ‘…’ that differs with positions of the wheels on which the unsprung components are provided (e.g. Page 7, Paragraph beginning with “Accordingly, in this embodiment …”; where the vibration detection units detect vibrations at a predetermined position in the passenger compartment).
Nakao fails to disclose every feature of sound localization that differs with positions of the wheels.
However, Toda, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a sound system for a vehicle, where the vehicle includes an audio sound localizer to localized a sound generated by the audio device to cause the driver to hear the sounds from certain positions (e.g. Paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vibration reducing device of Nakao, with the feature of localizing the sound in the system of Toda, in order to allow the driver to clearly recognize the sound and determine a state of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0006] of Toda).
As per Claim 5, Nakao, in view of Toda, teaches the features of Claim 2, and Nakao further discloses the features of wherein the processor comprises
an acceleration signal processor configured to generate the audio information from the one or more acceleration signals (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “The control arithmetic unit 25, …”; where the speaker is controlled by the control signal after outputting the signal; and where the acceleration signal is detected by the acceleration sensor, and output to the control arithmetic unit, which generates a control signal for controlling the speaker to reduce the vibrations of the vehicle),
with emphasis on a component of the predetermined frequency band over components of other frequency bands (e.g. Page 2, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the reference signal …”; Page 7, Paragraph beginning with “Accordingly, in this embodiment …”; where the calculation unit updates and optimizes filter coefficients to amplify the getting gain vibration signals so update the reference signal and output a control signal which cancels the engine noise so as to reduce vibrations (i.e. sets preferences for certain frequencies)).
As per Claim 7, Nakao, in view of Toda, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Nakao further discloses the features of wherein the acceleration signal processor is configured to emphasize a frequency band including a natural frequency of torsional vibration of one or more tires of the vehicle, over other frequency bands (e.g. Page 2, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the reference signal …”; Page 7, Paragraph beginning with “Accordingly, in this embodiment …”; where the calculation unit updates and optimizes filter coefficients to amplify the getting gain vibration signals so update the reference signal and output a control signal which cancels the engine noise so as to reduce vibrations (i.e. sets preferences for certain frequencies)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Harper, et al (U.S. 10,499,180 B1), which teaches a method for producing three-dimensional sound associated with a vehicle event.
Oh, et al (U.S. 2023/0197055 A1), which teaches a method for controlling noise related to the vehicle status.
Wheeler, et al (U.S. 10,049,654 B1), which teaches a method for sound monitoring and producing interior 3-d sound based on accelerometer signals.
You, et al (U.S. 2021/0323562 A1), which teaches a noise control apparatus for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663