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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Res judicata
Res judicata may constitute a proper ground for rejection. However, res judicata rejections should be applied only when the earlier decision was a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (or its predecessor Board) or any one of the reviewing courts and when there is no opportunity for further court review of the earlier decision.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The timely filing of a second application copending with an earlier application does not preclude the use of res judicata as a ground of rejection for the second application claims. A patent owner or applicant is precluded from seeking a claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was finally refused or canceled during an administrative trial. Similarly, a patent owner is precluded from seeking an amendment of a specification or drawing that was denied entry during a trial if the application or patent for which the amendment is sought has the same written description as the patent or application that was the subject of the administrative trial. See 37 CFR 42.73(d)(3).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When making a rejection on res judicata, action should ordinarily be made also on the basis of prior art, especially in continuing applications. In most situations the same prior art which was relied upon in the earlier decision would again be applicable.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the following case a rejection of a claim on the ground of res judicata was sustained where it was based on a prior adjudication, against the inventor on the same claim, a patentably nondistinct claim, or a claim involving the same issue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Katz, 467 F.2d 939, 167 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1970) (prior decision by District Court).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 3-13, 16 , and 18-20 are rejected under res judicata as being subject to an adverse judgment in the Board of Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision of 8/27/2012.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan et al (US 20170078854 A1, hereinafter Swaminathan) in view of Wirola et al (US 20130311080, hereinafter Wirola), and further in view of Levonas et al (US 7068780, hereinafter Levonas).
Consider claim 1, Swaminathan discloses a method for classifying a subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (Systems and methods of detecting whether a mobile device is located indoors or outdoors, paragraph 27), the method comprising:
receiving first labeled environmental signatures, wherein the first labeled environmental signatures correspond to indoor locations (Ground truth information, used for training, can represent known indoor/outdoor states of a device, paragraph 55);
receiving second labeled environmental signatures, wherein the second labeled environmental signatures correspond to outdoor locations (Ground truth information, used for training, can represent known indoor/outdoor states of a device, paragraph 55);
using the first and second labeled environmental signatures as training data to train a binary classifier to classify subject communication devices as being either indoors or outdoors (At block 220, training can occur using data obtained in block 210, Fig. 2 and paragraph 54; Ground truth information, used for training, can represent known indoor/outdoor states of a device, paragraph 55);
obtaining at least one unlabeled environmental signature from the subject communication device (obtaining one or more sensor readings from one or more sensors accessible by the mobile device, Fig. 4 and paragraph 68); and
analyzing the at least one unlabeled environmental signature using the binary classifier to classify the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (At block 430, process 400 includes selecting an indoor/outdoor detection model to apply from a plurality of trained models, paragraph 72; At block 440, process 400 includes providing the sensor reading as input to the selected model, paragraph 75; At block 450, process 400 includes determining a likelihood that a user of the mobile device is located indoors, paragraph 76; The probability of the mobile device being located outdoors can be determined, paragraph 77; At block 460, process 400 includes classifying the mobile device as indoors or outdoors, Fig. 4 and paragraph 80).
However, Swaminathan does not expressly disclose obtaining as an audio signature of the at least one unlabeled environmental signature, a plurality of filter coefficients captured from a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of an acoustic echo canceller of the subject communication device for use in analyzing and classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors.
In the same field of endeavor, Wirola discloses obtaining an audio signature of the at least one unlabeled environmental signature of the subject communication device for use in analyzing and classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (One approach involves the emission of a test sound from the device, and subsequent analysis of the echo characteristics (i.e. analysing the impulse response of the environment), paragraph 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Wirola with the teachings of Swaminathan to use sound from an environment proximal to a device in order to determine a context of that device.
As explained above, Wirola teaches analyzing the impulse response of the environment, however, the combination of Swaminathan and Wirola is silent regarding obtaining a plurality of filter coefficients captured from a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of an acoustic echo canceller of the subject communication device.
Levonas discloses most existing echo cancellers use a FIR filter (see Fig. 4 and col. 3, ll.4--6). Levonas further discloses that the "impulse response" of a FIR filter is actually just the set of FIR coefficients (see col. 5, ll. 7-8).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found obvious to use an echo canceller including a FIR filter a disclosed in Levonas in the method of Swaminathan as modified by Wirola to improve the computational efficiency and speed and reduce the number of storage elements required in FIR filters used in most existing echo cancellers.
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the at least one unlabeled environmental signature further comprises a light signature that represents a frequency of a light signal obtained from an optical sensor of the subject communication device (Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) 185 reading can be used to predict whether a mobile device is indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40); and the light signature is based on one or more of light intensity and light color temperature (Some example of elements for a feature vector for IOD can include logarithm of the average light intensity over the last second, paragraph 51).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Swaminathan discloses
wherein the at least one unlabeled environmental signature further comprises a radio signature obtained that represents one or more characteristics of one or more radio communication signals received by the subject communication device (received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40; a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59); and the method further comprising producing the radio signature by measuring one or more signal strengths of the one or more radio communication signals, wherein the one or more radio communication signals comprise one or more of a Wi-Fi signal and a Bluetooth signal (a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the at least one unlabeled environmental signature further comprises a radio signature obtained that represents one or more characteristics of one or more radio communication signals received by the subject communication device (received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40; a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59); and the method further comprising producing the radio signature based at least in part on identifying one or more wireless network access points from which the one or more radio communication signals are received (the mobile device can estimate its location based on IP addresses of nearby WiFi hotspots, paragraph 52).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the at least one unlabeled environmental signature further comprises a radio signature obtained that represents one or more characteristics of one or more radio communication signals received by the subject communication device (received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40; a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59); and the method further comprising producing the radio signature by estimating proximity of one or more components based at least in part on one or more respective RF signals received from the one or more components by the subject communication device (Detection of a plurality of Bluetooth devices near the mobile device can indicate that the mobile device is likely to be indoors, paragraph 59).
Consider claim 9, Swaminathan discloses a method for classifying a subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors, the method comprising:
obtaining one or more environmental signatures from the subject communication device (obtaining one or more sensor readings from one or more sensors accessible by the mobile device, Fig. 4 and paragraph 68); and
analyzing the one or more environmental signatures to classify the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (At block 430, process 400 includes selecting an indoor/outdoor detection model to apply from a plurality of trained models, paragraph 72; At block 440, process 400 includes providing the sensor reading as input to the selected model, paragraph 75; At block 450, process 400 includes determining a likelihood that a user of the mobile device is located indoors, paragraph 76; The probability of the mobile device being located outdoors can be determined, paragraph 77; At block 460, process 400 includes classifying the mobile device as indoors or outdoors, Fig. 4 and paragraph 80).
However, Swaminathan does not expressly disclose obtaining as an audio signature of the one or more environmental signatures, a plurality of filter coefficients captured from a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of an acoustic echo canceller of the subject communication device for use in classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors.
In the same field of endeavor, Wirola discloses obtaining an audio signature of the one or more environmental signatures of the subject communication device for use in classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (One approach involves the emission of a test sound from the device, and subsequent analysis of the echo characteristics (i.e. analysing the impulse response of the environment), paragraph 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Wirola with the teachings of Swaminathan to use sound from an environment proximal to a device in order to determine a context of that device.
As explained above, Wirola teaches analyzing the impulse response of the environment, however, the combination of Swaminathan and Wirola is silent regarding obtaining a plurality of filter coefficients captured from a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of an acoustic echo canceller of the subject communication device.
Levonas discloses most existing echo cancellers use a FIR filter (see Fig. 4 and col. 3, ll.4--6). Levonas further discloses that the "impulse response" of a FIR filter is actually just the set of FIR coefficients (see col. 5, ll. 7-8).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found obvious to use an echo canceller including a FIR filter a disclosed in Levonas in the method of Swaminathan as modified by Wirola to improve the computational efficiency and speed and reduce the number of storage elements required in FIR filters used in most existing echo cancellers.
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 9 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the one or more environmental signatures further comprise a radio signature, the method further comprising obtaining the radio signature by determining characteristics of one or more radio communication signals received by the subject communication device (received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40; a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59).
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 9 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the one or more environmental signatures comprise a radio signature, the radio signature comprising data transmitted by one or more wireless network access points (WiFi access points, paragraph 2; Examples of such a network can include a cellular network (such as CDMA, GSM, or LTE), WiFi, paragraph 30).
Consider claim 16, Swaminathan discloses a cellular communication device comprising:
a radio (mobile device 100 comprises transceiver 170 that can be used to wirelessly transmit and receive data over a network, Fig. 1 and paragraph 30);
an optical sensor (Mobile device 100 can also comprise a video capture device such as camera 155, Fig. 1 and paragraph 29; Mobile device 100 can also comprise Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) 185, Fig. 1 and paragraph 35);
an audio sensor (microphone 120, Fig. 1 and paragraph 29);
one or more processors (mobile device 100 comprises a processor 110, Fig. 1 and paragraph 29);
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Device 100 can also comprise a computer readable medium with a software application stored on the medium, paragraph 29);
the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising:
transmitting one or more operational metrics to an analysis component (Device data provided as input to the classification can include one or more sensor readings. The selected IOD model can be used to estimate a probability that the mobile device is indoors for the given value of the sensor reading, Fig. 3 and paragraph 66).
Obtaining one or more environmental signatures and transmitting the environmental signatures to the analysis component to be used by the analysis component to determine whether the cellular communication device is indoors or outdoors (Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) 185 reading can be used to predict whether a mobile device is indoors or outdoors; received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40).
However, Swaminathan does not expressly disclose an acoustic echo canceller comprising a finite impulse response (FIR) filter including a plurality of filter coefficients used for acoustic echo cancellation; or obtaining as an audio signature of the one or more environmental signatures, a plurality of filter coefficients captured from a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of an acoustic echo canceller of the subject communication device for use in classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors.
In the same field of endeavor, Wirola discloses obtaining an audio signature of the one or more environmental signatures of the subject communication device for use in classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (One approach involves the emission of a test sound from the device, and subsequent analysis of the echo characteristics (i.e. analysing the impulse response of the environment), paragraph 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Wirola with the teachings of Swaminathan to use sound from an environment proximal to a device in order to determine a context of that device.
However, the combination of Swaminathan and Wirola does not expressly disclose an acoustic echo canceller that determines an acoustic impulse response for acoustic echo cancellation, wherein the acoustic impulse response comprises coefficients of a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of the acoustic echo canceller.
As explained above, Wirola teaches analyzing the impulse response of the environment, however, the combination of Swaminathan and Wirola is silent regarding obtaining a plurality of filter coefficients captured from a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of an acoustic echo canceller of the subject communication device.
Levonas discloses an acoustic echo canceller (see Fig. 4), and teaches that most existing echo cancellers use a FIR filter (col. 3, ll.4--6). Levonas further discloses that the "impulse response" of a FIR filter is actually just the set of FIR coefficients (see col. 5, ll. 7-8).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found obvious to use an echo canceller including a FIR filter a disclosed in Levonas in the method of Swaminathan as modified by Wirola to improve the computational efficiency and speed and reduce the number of storage elements required in FIR filters used in most existing echo cancellers.
Consider claim 19, and as applied to claim 16 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the environmental signatures comprise a radio signature representing one or more characteristics of one or more radio communication signals received using the radio (received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40; a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59); and the radio signature comprises one or more signal strengths of the one or more radio communication signals (a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59).
Consider claim 20, and as applied to claim 16 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the environmental signatures comprise a radio signature representing one or more characteristics of one or more radio communication signals received using the radio (received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40; a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59); and the radio signature comprises an identification of a wireless network access point from which the one or more radio communication signals are received (the mobile device can estimate its location based on IP addresses of nearby WiFi hotspots, paragraph 52).
Claims 3, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan in view of Wirola, further in view of Levonas, and further in view of Mellot et al (US 20190101442 A1, hereinafter Mellot).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the least one unlabeled environmental signature further comprises a light signature that represents a frequency of a light signal obtained from an optical sensor of the subject communication device (Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) 185 reading can be used to predict whether a mobile device is indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40).
However, the combination of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas does not expressly disclose the method further comprising producing the light signature by calculating a Fourier transform of the light signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Mellot discloses the method further comprising producing the light signature by calculating a Fourier transform of the light signal (This signal SAC may then be filtered by an analog smoothing filter and delivered to a host processor of the detector ALS, for example a microcontroller, able to implement signal-processing operations such as a fast Fourier transform and a pulse width modulation (PWM) so as to extract information on the levels and the one or more flicker frequencies of the ambient luminous radiation from the AC signal SAC, paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Mellot with the teachings of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas, to allow post-processing to determine the light level and the one or more frequencies of the ambient luminous radiation.
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 9 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the one or more environmental signatures further comprise a light signature that represents a frequency of a light signal obtained from an optical sensor of the subject communication device (Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) 185 reading can be used to predict whether a mobile device is indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40).
However, the combination of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas does not expressly disclose the method further comprising obtaining the light signature by calculating a Fourier transform of a light intensity signal or a color temperature signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Mellot discloses further comprising obtaining the light signature by calculating a Fourier transform of a light intensity signal or a color temperature signal (This signal SAC may then be filtered by an analog smoothing filter and delivered to a host processor of the detector ALS, for example a microcontroller, able to implement signal-processing operations such as a fast Fourier transform and a pulse width modulation (PWM) so as to extract information on the levels and the one or more flicker frequencies of the ambient luminous radiation from the AC signal SAC, paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Mellot with the teachings of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas, to allow post-processing to determine the light level and the one or more frequencies of the ambient luminous radiation.
Consider claim 18, and as applied to claim 16 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the environmental signatures further comprise a light signature representing a frequency of a light signal obtained using the optical sensor (Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) 185 reading can be used to predict whether a mobile device is indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40).
However, the combination of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas does not expressly disclose the light signature comprising a Fourier transform of the light signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Mellot discloses wherein the light signature comprises a Fourier transform of the light signal (This signal SAC may then be filtered by an analog smoothing filter and delivered to a host processor of the detector ALS, for example a microcontroller, able to implement signal-processing operations such as a fast Fourier transform and a pulse width modulation (PWM) so as to extract information on the levels and the one or more flicker frequencies of the ambient luminous radiation from the AC signal SAC, paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Mellot with the teachings of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas, to allow post-processing to determine the light level and the one or more frequencies of the ambient luminous radiation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan in view Wirola, further in view of Levonas, and further in view of Bakthavathsalu et al (US 20110211511 A1, hereinafter Bakthavathsalu).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the at least one unlabeled environmental signature further comprises a radio signature obtained that represents one or more characteristics of one or more radio communication signals received by the subject communication device (received signal strength of a cellular signal, for example at transceiver 170, may be used to detect whether a mobile device is present indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40; a Bluetooth signal that can be ascertained as a signal of a printer, can imply that the mobile device is situated near a printer, and hence likely located indoors, paragraph 59).
However, the combination of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas does not expressly disclose further comprising producing the radio signature based at least in part on relative signal strengths of two or more radio communication signals received by the subject communication device.
In the same field of endeavor, Bakthavathsalu discloses further comprising producing the radio signature based at least in part on relative signal strengths of two or more radio communication signals received by the subject communication device (A cellular/WLAN signal quality ratio is calculated based on RSSI values received from both air interfaces and its trend is monitored to detect transitions which indicate the approximate location of the mobile device (i.e. indoor or outdoor, see paragraph 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Bakthavathsalu with the teachings of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas, to detect transitions which indicate the approximate location of a mobile device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan in view of Wirola, further in view of Levonas, and further in view of Van Dalen et al (US 20100187406 A1, hereinafter Van Dalen).
Consider claim 12, and as applied to claim 9 above, Swaminathan discloses wherein the one or more environmental signatures further comprise a light signature that represents a frequency of a light signal obtained from an optical sensor of the subject communication device (Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) 185 reading can be used to predict whether a mobile device is indoors or outdoors, paragraph 40).
However, the combination of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas does not expressly disclose the method further comprising obtaining the light signature by determining a frequency of a light intensity signal or a color temperature signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Dalen discloses the method further comprising obtaining the light signature by determining a frequency of a light intensity signal or a color temperature signal (determine color temperature of incident light and, accordingly, to facilitate the detection of natural and/or artificial light for determining the location of the photodiodes, paragraph 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Van Dalen with the teachings of Swaminathan, Wirola, and Levonas, for detecting ambient light conditions and using the detected conditions to detect or determine the presence of artificial light and/or natural light and, therefrom, to determine a location to be an indoor or outdoor location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits the combination of Swaminathan, Wirola and Levonas fails to teach or suggest at least, "obtaining, as an audio signature of the at least one unlabeled environmental signature, a plurality of filter coefficients captured from a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of an acoustic echo canceller of the subject communication device for use in classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors; and analyzing the at least one unlabeled environmental signature including the audio signature comprising the plurality of filter coefficients captured from the FIR filter using the binary classifier to classify the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors," as recited by claim 1 (p.12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Swaminathan discloses obtaining at least one unlabeled environmental signature from the subject communication device (obtaining one or more sensor readings from one or more sensors accessible by the mobile device, Fig. 4 and paragraph 68); and analyzing the at least one unlabeled environmental signature using the binary classifier to classify the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (At block 430, process 400 includes selecting an indoor/outdoor detection model to apply from a plurality of trained models, paragraph 72; At block 440, process 400 includes providing the sensor reading as input to the selected model, paragraph 75; At block 450, process 400 includes determining a likelihood that a user of the mobile device is located indoors, paragraph 76; The probability of the mobile device being located outdoors can be determined, paragraph 77; At block 460, process 400 includes classifying the mobile device as indoors or outdoors, Fig. 4 and paragraph 80); and Wirola discloses obtaining an audio signature of the at least one unlabeled environmental signature of the subject communication device for use in analyzing and classifying the subject communication device as being indoors or outdoors (One approach involves the emission of a test sound from the device, and subsequent analysis of the echo characteristics (i.e. analysing the impulse response of the environment), paragraph 62).
Both Swaminathan and Wirola are directed to determining whether a mobile device (e.g. a mobile phone) is located indoors or outdoors. Wirola discloses using sound to distinguish between the indoors and outdoors (see paragraph 57), specifically, by analysing the impulse response of the environment, (see paragraph 62). Echo cancellation is a well know technology used in telephony to prevent echoes, and Levonas teaches that most existing echo cancellers use a FIR filter (see Fig. 4 and col. 3, ll.4--6), and that that the "impulse response" of a FIR filter is actually just the set of FIR coefficients (see col. 5, ll. 7-8). Thus, the impulse response of the environment using an echo canceller with a FIR filter is the set of FIR coefficients, or in another words, the filter coefficients are “captured” by the impulse response of the environment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GERMAN VIANA DI PRISCO whose telephone number is (571)270-1781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571) 272-7915. 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.
/GERMAN VIANA DI PRISCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642