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 .
Claims Filed: 05-01-25
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/25 was filed after the mailing date of the 05/01/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfaffinger (US Publication) 20180301137 A1 in view of Bastyr (US Patent) 10741162 B1, in further view of Sommerfeldt (US Publication) 20080144853 A1, in further view of Breed (US Publication) 20050125117 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Pfaffinger teaches a method of diagnosing a failure of an active noise control system (In Fig 1, the active road noise control (RNC) system, has a malfunction detection module [115], which runs self tests between sensors [para 24], see para 20) comprising a sensor part comprising a plurality of sensors mounted in the vicinity of wheels of a vehicle (In Fig 1 [102, 112], acceleration sensors, positioned near the wheel, see para 20) and configured to detect a road surface vibration (In Fig 4, the acceleration sensors generate a sense signal depending on response to physical stimuli, e.g. impacts from bumpy roads, para 27), a microphone part comprising a plurality of microphones (Fig 1 [106, 113], microphone, see para 20) mounted in regions corresponding to seats of the vehicle (In Fig 1, the microphone are in the headrest, para 20) and configured to measure noise, and a speaker part comprising a plurality of speakers mounted in doors of the vehicle (Fig 1 [111, 114], loudspeaker, in the cabin interior, see para 20),
the method comprising: a vehicle development step of measuring and storing (In Fig 3, there are self - test/diagnosis procedures/modules to evaluate if there is a malfunction between one of the vibration sensors [302] and acoustic sensors [303]. The module will generate an electrical stimulus through the sensor arrangement [301] and evaluate the respective sensor based on its response, see para 24. In Fig 4, the information from the sensors is stored in the memory [407], and a stored sensitivity value representing the sensor’s expected speed, para 28) a sound wave transmission function A between the speaker part and the microphone part (Fig 1 [F(z)], represents the transfer function between a loudspeaker [111] and microphone [105], see para 19) and a sound wave transmission function A' between the sensor part and the microphone part (Fig 1 [P(z)], transfer characteristic between the wheel [101] and microphone [105], see para 18.) before the vehicle is released (another method for detecting a malfunction sensor by cross-correlating the damped “sense signal” [para 20] by the preset offset value, which is based expected normal driving conditions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this condition as the factory or default settings that were installed before “released” to the driver. See para 29);
a diagnosis step of determining, by a diagnosis part whether the active noise control system operates normally by measuring a sound wave transmission function a while the vehicle is stationary (In Fig 1, the road noise audile in the cabin is based on the inverse waveform from the signal [y(n)], is generated by loudspeaker [111], which reduces the road noise with the cabin. See para 19. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would be applied while the vehicle is idle, or stationary, as the RNC would be active as the engine is active.) and a sound wave transmission function a' while the vehicle travels (In Fig 1, the malfunction module [115] evaluates the sense signals from the acceleration sensors and microphones, see para 20) and calculating similarity between a and A and similarity between a' and A' (In Fig 4, the offset value is preset with expected normal driving conditions by default. The value becomes the fixed threshold value, that if the damped “sense” signal exceeds, the microprocessor will conclude the respective sensor malfunctioned, see para 29) after the vehicle is released;
Pfaffinger does not explicitly teach calculating similarity between a and A
Bastyr discloses calculating similarity between a and A (In Fig 5, music [M’(n)] signal being radiated from the speaker [524] is subtracted error signal [e(n)] to obtain the adjusted error signal [e’(n)], see Col 10 L40-45. The signal analysis controller [562] will compare the error signal with the adjusted error signal to determine a instability is occurring, which will highlight the secondary path is inaccurate and the ANC system will take corrective measures, see Col 10 L62-67, Col 11 L1-4. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize if the energy via noise boosting, the ANC system will deactivate the speaker signal in response, see Col 2 L55-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of calculating similarity between a and A as taught by Bastyr in Pfaffinger’s invention. The motivation would have been to verify the stored estimates of the secondary paths and optimize ANC system performance. In Col 9 L41-42, in Bastyr.
Pfaffinger does not explicitly teach a sound wave transmission
Sommerfeldt discloses a sound wave transmission (Fig 1 [H(z)], the “actual” secondary path [para 32], the secondary path estimates loudspeaker, acoustic transmission path, error sensors [microphones], and etc; see para 6. Note: the secondary path, via the SysID process, estimated by playing a white noise via a speaker and measuring its response at an error sensor [e.g. microphone].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a sound wave transmission as taught by Sommerfeldt in Pfaffinger’s invention. The motivation would have been to optimized secondary path model may be utilized in the active noise control system. In para 7, in Sommerfeldt.
Pfaffinger does not explicitly teach causing a display to provide a message related to abnormal operation
Breed discloses causing a display to provide a message related to abnormal operation (In Fig 4, a notification is sent to the driver via display or through cellular phone about failure found, para 275 )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a microphone part comprising a plurality of microphones mounted in regions corresponding to seats of the vehicle and configured to measure noise, and a speaker part comprising a plurality of speakers mounted in doors of the vehicle as taught by Breed in Pfaffinger’s invention. The motivation would have been to eliminate breakdowns through identifying potential component failures before they occur so that they can be repaired in a timely manner. In para 19, in Breed.
Claim 2 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfaffinger (US Publication) 20180301137 A1 in view of Bastyr (US Patent) 10741162 B1, in further view of Sommerfeldt (US Publication) 20080144853 A1, in further view of Breed (US Publication) 20050125117 A1, in further view of Wurm (US Publication) 102019008663 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Pfaffinger does not explicitly teach further comprising: a connection state determination step of determining whether the sensor part, the microphone part, the speaker part, and the diagnosis part are connected when the vehicle is turned on before the diagnosis step.
Wurm discloses further comprising: a connection state determination step of determining whether the sensor part, the microphone part, the speaker part, and the diagnosis part are connected when the vehicle is turned on before the diagnosis step (In Fig 2, the first step [S1], within each ignition cycle of the vehicle [F], all components of the system [1] are configured and checked for connection problem for the startup phase, see para 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of further comprising: a connection state determination step of determining whether the sensor part, the microphone part, the speaker part, and the diagnosis part are connected when the vehicle is turned on before the diagnosis step as taught by Wurm in Pfaffinger’s invention. The motivation would have been to check for correctness with regard to the functionality of the noise suppression function in a simple, quick and cost-effective manner. In para 9, in Wurm.
Regarding claim 3, Pfaffinger teaches wherein the diagnosis step comprises: a traveling diagnosis step of calculating the similarity between a' and A' (In Fig 4, the offset value is preset with expected normal driving conditions by default. The value becomes the fixed threshold value, that if the damped “sense” signal exceeds, the microprocessor will conclude the respective sensor malfunctioned, see para 29);
In further view, Bastyr teaches and a stationary diagnosis step of calculating the similarity between a and A, and (In Fig 5, music [M’(n)] signal being radiated from the speaker [524] is subtracted error signal [e(n)] to obtain the adjusted error signal [e’(n)], see Col 10 L40-45. The signal analysis controller [562] will compare the error signal with the adjusted error signal to determine a instability is occurring, see Col 10 L50-64.
Pfaffinger and in further view the preview references does not explicitly teach wherein diagnosis step are sequentially performed.
Wurm disclose a multi-stage test diagnostic method [para 8] are based on the verification steps preformed in a specific order relative to the vehicle’s status. In para 8, the process being Step1 (fault check every ignition cycle), Step 2 (test sensors tolerance state against default), Step 3 (test sensors orientation against default positioning), Step 4 (redo S2/S3 during active operations). That the second step [S2] and the third step [S3] can be performed simultaneously [para 25], but this shows that the timing relationship between these two verification steps is dependent of the designer’s choice of application, not a vital feature. Adding that either Step 2 or Step 3 is optional [para 32, 35].
Although Wurm does not explicitly teach wherein diagnosis step are sequentially performed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would be obvious to instead perform Wurm’s sensor-mic path [S2] step and speaker-mic [S3] step sequentially. As the sensor – mic check for a vehicle in motion is based on when the accelerometer data reflects road vibration undistorted. Also, the speaker – mic check for a vehicle is stationary is based on the ambient acoustic conditions being direct and not distorted by road noise. This demonstrates a rearrangement of diagnostic steps aligned based on the vehicle’s performance than a expected result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein diagnosis step are sequentially performed as taught by Wurm in Pfaffinger’s invention. The motivation would have been to checked for correctness with regard to the functionality of the noise suppression function in a simple, quick and cost-effective manner. In para 9, in Wurm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 -9 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.
Wertz (US Publication) 20100124337 A1– mic to speaker zones
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS A BARBOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-9626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm, Alternate Fridays: off.
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, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARCUS A BARBOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights