DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are cancelled.
Claim 12 is amended.
Claims 12 and 14-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrases “a time stamping interval P in a data acquisition unit being determined from a maximum clock drift of the sampling clocks and a nominal data sampling rate” and “wherein sampling times of the digital acoustic data between intervals P being interpolated from the transferred time stamping information” do not make clear the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation for a person of ordinary skill to avoid infringement.
The phrase can mean that time stamps are determined in some arbitrary manner based on any sampling rate and a clock drift. This can be factors that may be any chosen value by a person of ordinary skill or routine optimization when accounting for clock drift. It does not make clear what the interpolation means and what it actually does as sampling based on clock drift and ‘nominal sampling’ rate can mean sampling times are being somehow calculated or it can simply mean sampling based on the time stamps as the claims do not make clear what is being interpolated beyond what is already done in the first part of the phrase.
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.
Claims 12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan (US 20190162812 A1) in view of Kasichainula (US 20220116132 A1), Kato (US 20190250240 A1) and Anderson (US 20030017832 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sloan teaches sensing and measuring sound with multiple microphones associated with multiple data acquisition units that are spatially distributed over an area of interest to obtain analog sound signals[Fig 1, 2, 3 has monitoring devices #104 which has microphones #302 across a city block, Fig 1, 2, 3 has monitoring devices #104 which has microphones; 0020-0022 has analog to digital converters in each processing circuit #304 which are located in each monitoring station #104]….. the measured sound signals being sampled by analog-to-digital converters in each data acquisition unit to convert the measured analog sound signals into digital format to obtain corresponding digital acoustic data[Fig 1, 2, 3 has monitoring devices #104 which has microphones; 0020-0022 has analog to digital converters in each processing circuit #304 which are located in each monitoring station #104];
recording a unit location and accurately time stamping the digital acoustic data based upon a GPS positioning/time reference obtained by a GPS receiver and hardware logic circuit with deterministic timing in each data acquisition unit [#308 has reference timing for GPS correlation meaning known delay or accuracy so it is deterministic; 0023-0024] wherein the time stamping of digital acoustic data is performed at a lower rate than a rate of sampling the sound signals. [#308 has reference timing for GPS correlation; 0023-0024 has recording of time value of firearm discharge meaning it is a lower sampling rate that the sound]…..
transferring the digital acoustic data along with the unit location and time stamping information from each data acquisition unit to a data processing location[Abstract, Fig 1, 2 has central location #102 that receives each unit location and time values; 0015];…..
and determining a sound source location for each sensed acoustic event from the estimated time delays and recorded unit locations of each data acquisition unit pair[Abstract, 0002 -0004, 0035-0038 has sound source location based on time difference recorded unit locations].
Sloan does not explicitly teach the data acquisition units having independent sampling clocks driven by the sampling clocks ….. a time stamping interval P in a data acquisition unit being determined from a maximum clock drift of the sampling clocks and a nominal data sampling rate…..
at the data processing location, transforming each of the digital acoustic data from each data acquisition unit from a time domain into a frequency domain to obtain a set of transformed acoustic signal data;
computing cross-spectra for multiple pairs of the transformed acoustic signal data from different data acquisition units using the time stamps on batches of data to account for clock drift of the independent sampling clocks and to determine exact sampling times to an accuracy needed for cross-spectra computations, wherein sampling times of the digital acoustic data between intervals P being interpolated from the transferred time stamping information;
transforming the cross-spectra for each signal pair back into the time domain to obtain cross-correlation functions;
estimating, from the time-domain cross-correlation functions, respective time delays of sensed acoustic events identified from the measured sound signals between each pair of data acquisition units;
Kasichainula teaches a time stamping interval P in a data acquisition unit being determined from a maximum clock drift of the sampling clocks and a nominal data sampling rate[0017-0019 has timestamps, and sampling and interpolation and accounting for drift]….., wherein sampling times of the digital acoustic data between intervals P being interpolated from the transferred time stamping information[0017-0019 has timestamps, and sampling and interpolation and accounting for drift]
Kato teaches that at the data processing location, transforming each of the digital acoustic data from each data acquisition unit from a time domain into a frequency domain to obtain a set of transformed acoustic signal data[ Abstract, 0053 -0055 has conversion to frequency domain from input wave which by default is time domain; 0140 has time and frequency domain calculations and correlation. See also Fig 6, Step S605, S607];
computing cross-spectra for multiple pairs of the transformed acoustic signal data from different data acquisition units using the time stamps on batches of data to account for clock drift of the independent sampling clocks and to determine exact sampling times to an accuracy needed for cross-spectra computations [0080-0083 has cross-spectra correlation; See also Fig 6, Step S609];
transforming the cross-spectra for each signal pair back into the time domain to obtain cross correlation functions[ See #115, Fig 6 Step S611];
estimating, from the time-domain cross-correlation functions, respective time delays of sensed acoustic events identified from the measured sound signals between each pair of data acquisition units[ See #0116 and Fig 6 Step S613 and S615 for relative delay with paired mics];
Anderson teaches the data acquisition units having independent sampling clocks [Fig 2 has clock distribution module #10-7, See 0051, 0092], and driven by the sampling clock[Fig 2 has clock distribution module #10-7, See 0051, 0092]
computing cross-spectra for multiple pairs of the transformed acoustic signal data from different data acquisition units using the time stamps on batches of data to account for clock drift of the independent sampling clocks and to determine exact sampling times to an accuracy needed for cross-spectra computations [Fig 2 has clock distribution module #10-7, See, 0092, 0115 for time stamps and 0148, 0338 and claim 1 for cross-spectral computations];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sound source localization in Sloan in view of the data processing in Kato and the clock and time stamps of Anderson and sampling while accounting for drift in Kasichainula in order to create correlation functions to accurately estimate the sound source.
Regarding claim 14, Sloan, as modified, teaches data processing location corresponds to a central computer. [0040 has central processor #102 as a computer]
Regarding claim 15, Sloan, as modified, teaches wherein the data processing location corresponds to a cloud server. [0040 has central processor #102 as a server computer meaning it can be a cloud server]
Regarding claim 16, Sloan, as modified, teaches wherein the transfer of digital acoustic data to the data processing location is done manually via a removable storage media. [0022, 0027, 0042 has flash storage meaning a person of ordinary skill would understand that data can be entered manually using a flash drive]
Regarding claim 17, Sloan, as modified, teaches wherein the transfer of digital acoustic data to the data processing location is done by wireless data transmission. [0012,0019, 0025 -0026, 0048 has transmission to data processing by wired or wireless networks]
Regarding claim 18, Sloan, as modified, teaches wherein the transfer of digital acoustic data to the data processing location is done by wired data transmission. [0012, 0019, 0025-0026, 0048 has transmission to data processing by wired or wireless networks]
Regarding claim 19, Sloan, does not explicitly teach wherein the transformed acoustic signal data is also filtered and averaged in the frequency domain to remove noise.
Kato teaches wherein the transformed acoustic signal data is also filtered and averaged in the frequency domain to remove noise. [0144-0154 has signal to noise ratio and averaging meaning noise filtering]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sound source localization in Sloan in view of the data processing and averaging in Kato in order better filter out the noise.
Regarding claim 20, Sloan, as modified, teaches comprising displaying a determined sound source location for each sensed acoustic event on a map. [0032 has display of location on a map #410]
Regarding claim 21, Sloan, as modified, teaches comprising communicating location coordinates of a determined sound source location for each sensed acoustic event. [0032 has coordinates of the area]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly regarding the rate of time stamps. The fact that the sampling rate and time stamping may be performed at different rates means it reads on the claim.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
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 VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights