DETAILED ACTION
35 USC § 112 - Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 8 limitation “sound acquisition module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 8 limitation “instruction generation module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 8 limitation “instruction sending module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Sound acquisition module – this module correspond to the structure of software embedded inside a USB flash drive, removable hard disk, ROM, RAM, Diskette or CD-ROM [0069].
Instruction generation module – this module correspond to the structure of software embedded inside a USB flash drive, removable hard disk, ROM, RAM, Diskette or CD-ROM [0069].
Instruction sending module – this module correspond to the structure of software embedded inside a USB flash drive, removable hard disk, ROM, RAM, Diskette or CD-ROM [0069].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin US PG-Pub 2023/0096496.
Regarding claim 1 and 8-9, Shin teaches a sound acquisition module configured to control a vehicle external microphone to enter an external vehicle sound acquisition state and perform a pass-through mode (Fig. 2A & [0002]: having a transparent audio mode with external microphones-228A/D to capture external sounds); an instruction generation module configured to generate an external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction according to a target external vehicle sound signal when an external vehicle sound signal acquired by the vehicle external microphone is received in real-time (Fig. 4 & [0002]-[0003] & [0038] & [0054]: capturing with external microphones audio signal to the external scene and detecting objects in real time); and an instruction sending module configured to send the external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction to in-vehicle speakers; wherein the external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction is used to control the in-vehicle speakers to output a virtual sound signal corresponding to the target external vehicle sound signal (Fig. 4 & [0002]-[0003] & [0031] & [0038] & [0054]: after capturing and detecting the audio object, reproducing using the vehicle loudspeakers the audio object in a manner that the audio object appears to audibly arrive from the direction in which the audio objects reside in 3D sound scene).
While Shin failed to explicitly teach controlling a vehicle external microphone to enter an external vehicle sound acquisition state when a vehicle is in a pass-through mode. However, Shin does teach invoking a transparency module with the capture of the audio object data in [0031]. 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 activating microphone to capture sound before or after a mode is activated is an inventor choice and no unexpected result will arise.
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches wherein the step of generating the external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction according to the target external vehicle sound signal comprises: determining an actual external vehicle sound source orientation corresponding to the target external vehicle sound signal; and determining a corresponding in-vehicle virtual sound source orientation according to the actual external vehicle sound source orientation; the step of sending the external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction to the in-vehicle speakers comprises: sending the external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction to an in-vehicle speaker corresponding to the in-vehicle virtual sound source orientation (Fig. 4 & [0037]-[0038] & [0066]-[0067]: determining location/direction of the audio object using camera and beamforming, which will then be used to create the internal virtual audio object).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches wherein the vehicle is provided with a plurality of the vehicle external microphones configured in different positions; the step of determining the actual external vehicle sound source orientation corresponding to the target external vehicle sound signal comprises: obtaining an external vehicle sound signal acquired by each of the plurality of the vehicle external microphones; determining the target external vehicle sound signal and the target vehicle external microphone corresponding to the target external vehicle sound signal according to signal attributes of the plurality of the external vehicle sound signals; wherein the signal attributes comprise at least one of the following: a signal amplitude value and a signal delay value; determining the actual external vehicle sound source orientation corresponding to the target external vehicle sound signal according to a configured orientation of the target vehicle external microphone (Fig. 4 & [0037]-[0038] & [0047] & [0066]-[0067]: determining location/direction of the audio object using camera and beamforming, using known location of microphone and amplitude and delay, which will then be used to create the internal virtual audio object).
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches wherein the vehicle is provided with a plurality of the in-vehicle speakers configured in different configured positions; the step of sending the external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction to the in-vehicle speaker corresponding to the in-vehicle virtual sound source orientation comprises: determining an in-vehicle spatial location to be covered by the virtual sound signal; determining a corresponding in-vehicle speaker in combination with the in-vehicle spatial location and the in-vehicle virtual sound source orientation; and sending the external vehicle sound virtualizing instruction to the in-vehicle speaker (Fig. 4 & [0002]-[0003] & [0031] & [0038] & [0054]: after capturing and detecting the audio object, reproducing using the vehicle loudspeakers the audio object in a manner that the audio object appears to audibly arrive from the direction in which the audio objects reside in 3D sound scene).
Claim 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin US PG-Pub 2023/0096496 in view of Hoover US Pat 11,202,150.
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches identifying a current scene of the vehicle according to sensor data collected by a vehicle sensor in real-time; and turning on the pass-through mode responsive to receiving data (Fig. 4 & [0002]-[0003] & [0031] & [0038] & [0054]: capturing with external microphones audio signal to the external scene and detecting objects in real time and invoking the transparency module responsive to receiving the audio data).
Shin failed to teach turning pass-through mode responsive to when the current scene of the vehicle meets a condition for turning on the pass-through mode.
However, Hoover teaches audio adjustment mode responsive to when the current scene of the vehicle meets a condition for turning on the audio adjustment (Col. 17 line 45-67: when the scene meet a condition of a specific scene with distance, turning on the audio adjustment to amplify or attenuate audio).
Shin and Hoover are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. 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 scene meet a condition allows for the system to activate at specific scenarios where the system will perform better.
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches determining, from a plurality of pre-configured pass-through modes, a pass-through mode of a target type corresponding to the current scene of the vehicle; wherein the plurality of the pre-configured pass-through modes have different external vehicle sound acquisition modes and/or external vehicle sound virtualization modes ([0003]: having different audio object like pedestrian, bicycle, siren, etc…, which will require different playback modes).
Shin failed to teach turning on the pass-through mode.
However, turning on a mode (Col. 17 line 45-67: when the scene meet a condition of a specific scene with distance, turning on the audio adjustment to amplify or attenuate audio).
Shin and Hoover are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. 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 scene meet a condition allows for the system to activate at specific scenarios where the system will perform better.
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