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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-9 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues Seneger “does not disclose that any audio selection in the vehicle is mixed with soundscapes or melodies generated by sound generation module … neither the semantic context of the environment in the vehicle nor the external geo spatial information related to the vehicle’s position and destination is audio that is capable of ‘mixing,’… of Seneger, the term ‘mixed with’ does not disclose mixing generated soundscape audio with another audio signal…” and further “Seneger reference does not disclose that the sound system 10 uses a mixer device to mix 1) music or audio recommended from the recommendation system … with 2) generated soundscapes or melodies …”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Applicant is arguing unclaimed language and does not appreciate the broadness of the presently claimed limitations. The presently claimed language merely recite the audio source signal is provided by the in-vehicle entertainment module and at least one speaker that plays a mixed audio signal formed by mixing the generated soundscape audio signal with the audio source signal. In another word, the generated soundscape audio signal is being output by at least one speaker together with any audio source signal. There is no audio being selected specifically or mixer device required by the claimed invention. Given its BRI, the two audio signals are being output to at least one speaker and indeed Seneger teaches the feature. Seneger does not have to use the exact term to describe the feature nor the figure have to show that a mixer, which is not claimed, is presence to teach the feature. In at least paragraph [0028], the environment and context of the vehicle generates audio, music, or soundscapes delivered to the occupants of the vehicle, and the generated sound from the model is mixed of various sounds or audio or music and Seneger does not merely disclosing a selection of music from a playlist. It appears Applicant may be arguing the mixing of audio signal in an inventive concept and it is clearly not a novelty. Even so, in the same paragraph, Seneger further describe where the “soundscape that is procedurally and continuously created in relation to the environment is playing elements that need attention, such as the person on the bicycle, will be enhanced with audio queues …”, clearly is mixing or combining or adding various audio signals to the soundscape audio signal. Therefore, Seneger reads on the presently claimed limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seneger et al. (US 2024/0025416 A1).
For claims 1, 11 and 20, Seneger discloses a system for enhancing in-vehicle acoustic experience, the system comprising: a sensor module that obtains and transmits sensor data (Fig. 1, para. 0006-0008);
an in-vehicle entertainment module that provides an audio source signal (Para. 0028, where the in-vehicle audio system provide audio source signal);
a soundscape generation module that performs method steps comprising: receiving the sensor data from the sensor module; and generating a soundscape audio signal based on the sensor data (Para. 0024, 0028, 0029, where soundscape audio are generated); and
at least one speaker that plays a mixed audio signal formed by mixing the generated soundscape audio signal with the audio source signal (Fig. 1, para. 0019, 0020, 0028, where generated soundscape audio signal mixed with audio source signal are played through the sound system).
For claims 2 and 12, Seneger discloses the system of claims 1 and 11, wherein generating the soundscape audio signal based on the sensor data comprises: analyzing the sensor data to determine a scene, thereby selecting a plurality of sound materials for the scene and generating at least one sound element (Para. 0004, 0023, 0032, 0045); and randomizing and fusing in-layers the at least one sound element, so as to generate the soundscape audio signal (Para. 0028, where various audio associated with the context of the vehicle positions and travel information collectively used to generate the mixed soundscape audio signal, fusing the sound with in various layers).
For claims 3 and 13, Seneger discloses the system of claims 2 and 12, wherein randomizing the at least one sound element comprises randomly controlling one or more of the following: basic volume and volume fluctuation; trigger density; random sound material selection; an initial position in space and a spatial movement speed or Doppler effect; or an interval distance (Para. 0021, 0023, where at least volume levels, sound material selection, density of the audio etc. are dynamically adjusted).
For claims 6 and 16, Seneger discloses the system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the audio source signal comprises at least one of music, movies, broadcasts, navigations, prompt tones and alarm tones (Para. 0019, 0020, 0022, 0027, 0028, 0045).
For claim 7, Seneger discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor module comprises: at least one interior sensor for acquiring sensor data inside a vehicle; and at least one exterior sensor for acquiring sensor data outside the vehicle (Fig. 1, para. 0008, 0009, where interior and exterior sensors are utilized).
For claims 8 and 17, Seneger discloses the system of claims 7 and 11, wherein the at least one interior sensor comprises at least one of an interior camera, or an interior microphone (Fig. 1, para. 0008, 0009, 0020, 0022, 0023, where interior camera and microphone can be included).
For claims 9 and 18, Seneger discloses the system of claims 7 and 11, wherein the at least one exterior sensor comprises at least one of an exterior camera, an exterior microphone, a windshield sensor, a GPS sensor, a speedometer, or a proximity sensor (Fig. 1, para. 0002, 0008, 0009, 0020).
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) 4, 5, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seneger et al. (US 2024/0025416 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2023/010805 A1).
For claims 4 and 14, Seneger discloses the system of claims 2 and 12, comprising one or more speakers (Para. 0021), but does not specifically disclose the at least one speaker comprises a multi-channel speaker, and each of the at least one sound element is arranged at a corresponding virtual location in a 2D or 3D direction based on a known channel orientation of the multi-channel speaker. Sun in the same field of the art discloses the at least one speaker comprises a multi-channel speaker, and each of the at least one sound element is arranged at a corresponding virtual location in a 2D or 3D direction based on a known channel orientation of the multi-channel speaker (At least in Fig. 2, 4, 5, abstract, para. 0010, 0064, where sound elements are virtually presented by the multi-channel speakers to the passengers). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Seneger to include a multi-channel speaker, and each of the at least one sound element is arranged at a corresponding virtual location in a 2D or 3D direction based on a known channel orientation of the multi-channel speaker, as taught by Sun to improve the experience of the soundscape corresponding to different sound elements and directions.
For claims 5 and 15, Seneger, as modified discloses the system of claims 4 and 14, wherein the mixed audio signal comprises at least two channels, which are respectively played through corresponding channels of the multi-channel speaker (Sun – at least in Fig. 2, 4, 5, abstract, para. 0010, 0064, where the various channels play respective mixed audio signal based on the soundscape signals).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seneger et al. (US 2024/0025416 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lyren et al. (US 2017/0188168 A1).
For claims 10 and 19, Seneger discloses the system of claims 1 and 11, wherein, based on an approaching vehicle or obstacle detected via a proximity sensor (Para. 0020, 0023, 0028), but does not specifically disclose the soundscape audio signal in a direction or a position towards the vehicle or the obstacle is muted. Lyren in the same field of the art discloses the soundscape audio signal in a direction or a position towards the vehicle or the obstacle is muted (Para. 0047, 0103, 0292). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Seneger to present the soundscape audio signal in a direction or a position towards the vehicle or the obstacle is muted, as taught by Lyren to selectively provide relevant and prioritizing sound of interest over irrelevant sound.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2021/0197667A A1) Winton et al. discloses providing mixed sound to occupant of the vehicle.
(10,068,620) Lin et al. discloses a sound augmentation system for automative augmenting soundscape signal for a vehicle.
(US 2022/0118997 A1) Paus discloses a vehicle sound system notifying events to occupants.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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 Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights