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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1) the sample obtaining module in claim 8
2) the loudness obtaining module in claim 8
3) the audio generation module in claim 8
4) the outputting control module in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
ART REJECTION:
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa(WO 2012098570 A1) in view of Asao et al(JP 2011201525 A).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hayakawa includes:
1) obtaining an outside prompt sound master tape, and performing frequency conversion processing on the outside prompt sound master tape to obtain processed audio samples is met by frequency components of simulated running sounds generated by the by the control unit(15) which is stored by the simulated traveling sound waveform storage unit(11), and wherein frequency components of sounds recorded from an actual vehicle and a frequency component of tire noise is recorded at predetermined speed, so as to create simulated road noise(see: Hayakawa, para[0016]);
2) obtaining corresponding target loudness information based on a current driving speed of a vehicle is met by the tire and engine sounds being recorded when the vehicle travels at predetermined speeds, to record simulated road noise within the range of speed traveling on a general road(see: Hayakawa, para[0016-0017]);
3) generating a simulated vehicle driving sound wave audio by combining the processed audio samples with the target loudness information is met by the recording of tire noise generated and wherein the sound pressure level of the simulated road noise is set to be a continuous spectrum such that the engine sound and road noise are mixed such that the simulated traveling sound is radiated from the vehicle(see: Hayakawa, para[0018]);
- Hayakawa does not show:
1) generating a vehicle driving prompt sound outputting instruction based on the simulated vehicle driving sound wave audio transmitting the vehicle driving prompt sound outputting instruction to an external vehicle loudspeaker, wherein the vehicle driving prompt sound outputting instruction is used for instructing the external vehicle loudspeaker to output the simulated vehicle driving sound wave audio.
Although not specifically disclosed, Hayakawa does desire to provide vehicle sound exteriorly, with regards to the recorded, as discussed above. Use of systems which prompt sound outputting instructions external to the vehicle is well known. In related art, Asao et al(Asao) teaches a imitation sound generating device, wherein sound waves pertaining to vehicle sounds are generated on the basis of vehicle speed, and transmitted exteriorly to a vehicle via speakers(see: Asao, paragraph 0019), wherein a pseudo sound generation unit(760A) outputs a sound to speakers so as to provide a pseudo vehicle sound exteriorly to the vehicle.
Since the use of sound generation units and speakers that output sounds exteriorly is well known, as taught by Asao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sound generation unit of Asao, including speakers, into the system of Hayakawa, since Hayakawa already desires to provide vehicle sounds exteriorly, and therefore would have facilitated the process in an efficient manner.
-- Claim 8 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1 above, as well as:
1) the sample obtaining module and the loudness obtaining module are met by the simulated traveling sound waveform storage unit(11) which stores the recorded sounds(see: Hayakawa, para[0014]), and the running sound signal processing unit(16) in conjunction with the amplifiers(17a/17b), which processes the simulated traveling sound signal to be output in accordance with the control unit(15)(see: Hayakawa, paras[0014-0015]).
2) the audio generation module is met by the speakers(18a,18b) of Hayakawa;
3) the outputting control module is met by the control unit(!5) that controls each component of the sound generate and the simulated traveling sound indicated by the sound data in the simulated traveling sound waveform storage unit(11)(see: Hayakawa para[0014]).
-- With regards to claim 9, Hayakawa does not disclose:
1) the memory, and processor is configured to run a computer program stored on the memory.
In related art, Asao teaches the use of control unit(110/750) which includes a central processing unit(CPU) and executes various programs stored therein. Asao teaches that the programs are stored on recording medium and executed by control unit(see: Asao, para[0054]). Since the use of memory, and processors configured to run a computer program stored on the memory is well known, as taught by Asao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the memory and program of Asao, into the system of Hayakawa, since this would have provided a reliable and low cost means of providing instructions to the control unit of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686