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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene: 20190272724 hereinafter Gre further in view of Hwang: 20170154638 hereinafter Hwa in view of Huang: 10565985 hereinafter Hua.
Regarding claim 1
Gre teaches:
A system, method, appropriate medium bearing coded instructions comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with one or more audio output devices (Gre: Fig 1: a baby monitoring system 110, 120, 140 in communication output device 170):
receiving an indication of an event (Gre: ¶ 72-76, 79; Fig 5, 6: audio above a threshold volume or over a threshold duration or other determinations of baby discomfort comprise an determined event which generates an alert) that is indicative of detecting a respective sound (Gre: ¶ 1, 72-76, 79, 91, 101; Fig 5, 6: system continually determines sound with respect to a threshold duration or volume; the specification discusses “a respective sound” as indicative of events which the system is configured to detect at ¶ 304 of the instant specification; in this case a sound over a threshold is considered a respective sound as the Gre system is configured to detect such sounds as representative of a baby’s distress);
in response to receiving the indication of the event, initiating a first time-based process, wherein during the first time-based process, captured sound is outputted via the one or more audio output devices (Gre: ¶ 72-76, 79; Fig 5, 6: audio over a threshold volume or duration output by an end user device such as output device; the output of audio is considered time based in as much as the audio is output for a certain duration, the output audio is timewise linear, etc.);
at a first time while the first time-based process is active: receiving a first captured sound; and outputting, via the one or more audio output devices, a first audio output that is based on the first captured sound (Gre: ¶ 72-76, 79; Fig 5, 6: audio captured by the baby monitoring system is output to a user such as by the output device; the output audio is based on the captured audio in as much as an audio video stream is captured and a video, audio, and/or audio-video feed is output based thereon); and
at a second time while the first time-based process is active (Gre: ¶ 79; Fig 6: such as when iterating through the method of figure 6 after activation of stream output to a user): in accordance with a determination that a set of one or more process- termination criteria are met (Gre: ¶ 79; Fig 6: such as determining of audio less than a threshold),
wherein the set of one or more process-termination criteria includes a criterion that is met when a predetermined time has elapsed since a third time (Gre: ¶ 67, 79; Fig 1, 5, 6: Gre teaches the determination that an audio volume exceeds a threshold for a first period of time at which point the system activates transmission, output, etc. of an audio stream such as to a user; this occurs with respect to a second predetermined time and the figure 6 process iterates, a second predetermined time occurs at the exit from step 615 of figure 6 either when the average sound volume has remained below a defined period of time, such as result of similar processing to that disclosed with regard to step 515; or the audio remains greater than a threshold for a determined period of time; having remained greater, at a third time the process recurs and remaining greater at a fourth time the process recurs with the condition failing; thus the audio output is stopped at a predetermined time, that is a plurality of regular iterations comprising a third time, thus when a predetermined time has elapsed since the third iteration the criterion is met and the audio output ceases);
terminating the first time-based process (Gre: ¶ 67, 79; Fig 5, 6: when the volume level decreases below a threshold for at least a period of time successive to a particular timewise iteration of the loop of figure 6); and
in accordance with a determination that the set of one or more process- termination criteria are not met, maintaining the first time-based process (Gre: ¶ 67, 79; Fig 5, 6: such as determining of audio greater than a threshold such as for a defined period of time or greater).
Gre does not explicitly teach an event indicia indicative of detecting a respective sound; including a mapping of times to distinct time periods such that the system may determine that a third time includes a time at which the respective sound was last detected nor that the system, after termination of the time based process, is in a state in which it cannot output audio based on sound captured via an external device in response to user input.
In a related field of endeavor Hwa teaches a system and method for determining respective sounds based on audio features (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-62; Fig 5), wherein the system detects input sounds (Hwa: Fig 5: at 510), extracts features therefrom (Hwa: Fig 5: by extracting features therefrom), to determine types thereof (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64; Fig 5, 6: system classifies components of detected sound based on features determined therefrom); said types indicative of detecting a respective sound and a time the sound was received (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 31, 33, 58-64, 68; Fig 5, 6, 7: system determines an audio event by classifying the detected sounds and further processing the resulting classes based on a threshold, maxima, etc.); wherein said respective sound is thereby mapped to a detected sound type and stored as an audio event in concert with a timestamp in an audio event log (Hwa: ¶ 51, 61, 75, 84, 89; Fig 10) such that the detected sound type can be compared timewise against previous occurrences thereof to thereby improve the capture or relevant events (Hwa: ¶ 78, 79; Fig 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the Gre system and method by inclusion of the timestamp and tracking aspects of the Hwa system and method particularly to track and group respective sounds based on timestamp data and historical occurrence data and thereby direct the Gre system to track audio events based on detected first, second, third, etc. timewise sound occurrences, including a time at which a respective sound was last detected) and thereby perform and/or cease performance of recording, streaming, etc. functions based thereon and for at least the purpose of increasing a user confidence that a particular desired sound, such as a baby crying, will be detected, recorded, streamed, etc. in concert with a user’s instruction; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Gre uses time and duration to analyze the duration of a sound since incept to thereby detect if a baby makes continuous sound over a threshold (please see at least Gre: ¶ 28). Hwa adds to this teaching by timestamping the detection event (please see at least Hwa: Fig 2). Gre in view of Hwa thus strongly suggests but does not explicitly state that the system operates to detect an elapsed time since a particular time which a determined event was detected and terminate recording, storing, and/or streaming of the event; the termination including preventing the output of audio such that the audio cannot be output.
In a related field of endeavor Hua teaches a system to prevent exfiltration of audio data wherein a manager component detects the elapse of a timer of preset duration (Hua: Col 17:40-17:67) and after the elapse of the timer the system disables a microphone (Hua: Col 17:40-17:67) to thereby prevent an application from accessing the microphone signal (Hua: Col 4: 16-4:20, 14:3-14:5), thereby preventing data leakage and unauthorized or continued access to captured audio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the Gre in view of Hwa system and method to incorporate Hua’s time based audio lockout, such that after termination of the first time based process the computer system is placed in an operating state in which it cannot output captured audio absent a new event, including in response to user input, for at least the purpose of the Hua taught prevention of continued or unauthorized access to captured audio, to thereby prevent data leakage; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: in response to receiving the indication of the event and while the first time-based process is active, displaying, via a display generation component in communication with the computer system, a notification associated with the event (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Figs 5, 6: system operates to determine an event and display a video stream notifying a user of the monitoring system); (Hwa: ¶ 33, 34; Fig 2: system displays notification of a determined event). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 2, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while displaying the notification associated with the event and while the first time-based process is active (Gre: ¶ 67, 79; Fig 5, 6: such as while transmission, output, etc. is activated) detecting a user input corresponding to selection of the notification, wherein outputting the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound occurs in response to the user input corresponding to selection of the notification (Hwa: ¶ 33, 34; Fig 2: such as displaying, operating upon user interface element 240 to allow a user to hear sounds gathered by the monitor). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 2, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the predetermined time has elapsed since the third time, ceasing display of the notification associated with the event (Gre: ¶ 67, 79; Fig 5, 6: such as after a persistent event has ceased to occur when the system stops providing the alert); (Hwa: ¶ 25, 33, 34; Fig 2: event display includes time, image, and optional streaming display of audio, video, etc. surveillance data). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 2, wherein the notification associated with the event includes an indication with information about the event (Hwa: Fig 2: system displays type, location and incept time of a detected event). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 2, wherein the notification associated with the event is displayed on a user interface of an application associated with a home automation system (Gre: ¶ 34: system comprises a home automation embodiment). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while outputting the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound and while the first time-based process is active, detecting a user input requesting to cease outputting the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound; and in response to detecting the user input requesting to cease outputting the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound, ceasing output of the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound (Hwa: Fig 2: such as by a second or subsequent depression of the playback control 240 to thereby pause or end playback of the transmitted media stream). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: after ceasing output of the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound and while the first time-based process is active: in accordance with the determination that the set of one or more process- termination criteria are not met, maintaining the first time-based process (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: such as by continuing to store audio); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 34, 58-64, 68; Fig 2, 5, 6, 7: such as by discontinuing or pausing the media delivery by a second, subsequent depression of controller 240 while the device maintains the storage of audio); (Hua: Col 4: 16-4:20, 14:3-14:5, 17:60-17:67: system operates to prevent output of audio, media, etc. based on elapse of time). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: after ceasing output of the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound and while the first time-based process is active: in accordance with the determination that the set of one or more process- termination criteria are not met, displaying, via a display generation component in communication with the computer system, a second notification associated with the event, wherein the second notification, when selected, is configured to initiate output, via the one or more audio output devices, of the first audio output that is based on the first captured sound (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: such as by continuing, discontinuing, and/or resuming storage, transmission, output, etc. of audio, video, and/or audio/video); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 34, 58-64, 68; Fig 2, 5, 6, 7: such as by discontinuing or pausing the media delivery by a second, subsequent depression of controller 240 while the device maintains the storage of audio and subsequently continuing the output of audio); (Hua: Col 4:16-4:20, 14:3-14:5, 17:60-17:67: system operates to prevent output of audio, media, etc. based on elapse of time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the Play/Pause type button of Hwa to allow user directed access to the audio stream stored by Gre for at least the purpose of allowing selectable access to the audio stream by a user of the monitoring device such as for checking on a crying baby while allowing the baby to “cry it out,”. The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the set of one or more process-termination criteria includes a second criterion that is met when an indication is received that indicates that an external device configured to capture the first captured sound has detected a user input of a first type (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 34, 58-64, 68; Fig 2, 5, 6, 7: such as based on a user dismissing or pausing an event). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while the first time-based process is active, displaying, via a display generation component that is in communication with the computer system, a camera view of a camera device that is associated with a first external device configured to capture the first captured sound (Gre: Fig 1, 6: such as a camera integrated or incident with the monitoring system as shown in figure 1 and suitable to capture a video stream, audio/video stream, etc. and deliver same to user under determined conditions); (Hua: Col 4:16-4:20, 14:3-14:5, 17:60-17:67: system operates to prevent output of audio, media, etc. based on elapse of time). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of the event includes receiving information from a second external device about the second external device detecting the respective sound, wherein the respective sound corresponds that was determined to correspond to a sound of a recognized type (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: such as by determining by a monitoring device a sound with an average volume greater than a threshold and an average duration greater than a threshold and providing same to a user device); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64, 68, 72; Fig 5, 6, 7, 9: such as by detection, classification of respective sounds utilizing two or more sensors of the system); (Hua: Col 4:16-4:20, 14:3-14:5, 17:60-17:67; 23:4-23:7: system operates to prevent output of audio, media, etc. based on elapse of time and to classify the audio). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 12, wherein the sound of the recognized type is selected from the group consisting of: sound outputted by a smoke alarm, sound outputted by a carbon monoxide detector, sound of glass breaking, and sound of a baby crying (Gre: ¶ 29, 63, 64: such as responding to alerts generated by a baby monitor, smoke detector or carbon monoxide detector); (Hwa: ¶ 25: such as by classifying, recognizing, etc. various sounds of interest to a user including that of breaking glass); (Hua: Col 4:16-4:20, 14:3-14:5, 17:60-17:67; 23:4-23:7: system operates to prevent output of audio, media, etc. based on elapse of time and to classify the audio). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of the event includes receiving information from a third external device about the third external device being in an active state (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: such as by determining by a monitoring device a sound with an average volume greater than a threshold and an average duration greater than a threshold and providing same to a user device); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64, 68, 72; Fig 5, 6, 7, 9: such as by detection, classification of respective sounds utilizing two or more sensors of the system); (Hua: Col 4:16-4:20, 14:3-14:5, 17:60-17:67; 23:4-23:7: system operates to prevent output of audio, media, etc. based on elapse of time and to classify the audio). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 15
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the event is associated with one or more external device(s) having a plurality of first, fourth, etc. devices operable in a plurality of first, etc. configurations (Gre: ¶ 5, 45; fig 4: such as a monitor device, camera, receiver associated therewith etc. configured with instructions to capture an audio, video, and/or audio/video stream; system ay comprise a plurality of network devices), wherein a first, fourth, etc. external device is configured to capture the first captured sound (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64, 68; Fig 5, 6, 7: plurality of first, fourth, etc. sound sensors operates to determine audio events corresponding to input sounds), wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while the first time-based process is active, receiving an indication of a second event associated with a fifth external device, different from the fourth external device; and while the first time-based process is active and after receiving the indication of the second event: in accordance with a determination that the fifth external device includes the first configuration: receiving a second captured sound captured by the fifth external device; and outputting, via the one or more audio output devices, a second audio output that is based on the second captured sound and outputting, via the one or more audio output devices, a second audio output that is based on a second captured sound (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: audio captured by a first device such as the baby monitoring system of claim 1 is output to a user such as by the output device while the sound is active and the system comprises multiple such devices similarly operable, such as by continuing to output the particular sounds in the environment while iterating through the loop and maintaining the first process associated with the activation condition); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64, 68; Fig 5, 6, 7: one or more sensor devices of the system operate to determine one or more audio events by classifying the sounds detected by the one or more sensor devices and further processing the resulting classes based on a threshold, maxima, etc.); (Hua: Col 11:54-12:3: system additionally includes one or more video input signals record, output, etc. sensed data output sensor data to a user based on a set of criteria). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua and by iteration of the processes performed thereby with respect to the disclosed pluralities of cameras sensors, etc. of Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua and in the manner claimed, for at least the purpose of scaling the system such as to accommodate a large home with multiple emergent conditions; a care facility with a plurality of rooms; or indeed any scaled enterprise requiring monitoring of babies, care stations, inmates, etc. one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 16
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 15, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while the first time-based process is active and after receiving the indication of the second event: in accordance with a determination that the fifth external device does not include the first configuration: forgoing outputting, via the one or more audio output devices, the second audio output that is based on the second captured sound (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: audio captured by a first device such as the baby monitoring system of claim 1 is output to a user such as by the output device while the sound is active and the system comprises multiple such devices similarly operable, such as by continuing to output the particular sounds in the environment while iterating through the loop and maintaining the first process associated with the activation condition); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64, 68; Fig 5, 6, 7: one or more sensor devices of the system operate to determine one or more audio events by classifying the sounds detected by the one or more sensor devices and further processing the resulting classes based on a threshold, maxima, etc.); (Hua: Col 11:54-12:3: system additionally includes one or more video input signals record, output, etc. sensed data output sensor data to a user based on a set of criteria). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 17
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 15, wherein the first configuration is a configuration that enables a device that is configured with the first configuration to transmit captured sound for output by the computer system (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: audio captured by a first device such as the baby monitoring system of claim 1 is output to a user such as by the output device while the sound is active and the system comprises multiple such devices similarly operable, such as by continuing to output the particular sounds in the environment while iterating through the loop and maintaining the first process associated with the activation condition); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64, 68; Fig 5, 6, 7: one or more sensor devices of the system operate to determine one or more audio events by classifying the sounds detected by the one or more sensor devices and further processing the resulting classes based on a threshold, maxima, etc.); (Hua: Col 11:54-12:3: system additionally includes one or more video input signals record, output, etc. sensed data output sensor data to a user based on a set of criteria). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 18
Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua teaches or suggests:
The computer system of claim 15, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: after receiving the indication of the event associated with the fourth external device, displaying, via a display generation component in communication with the computer system, a first notification and after receiving the indication of the second event associated with the fifth external device, displaying, via the display generation component in communication with the computer system, a second notification (Gre: ¶ 67-79; Fig 5, 6: audio captured by a first device such as the baby monitoring system of claim 1 is output to a user such as by the output device while the sound is active and the system comprises multiple such devices similarly operable, such as by continuing to output the particular sounds in the environment while iterating through the loop and maintaining the first process associated with the activation condition); (Hwa: Abstract; ¶ 58-64, 68; Fig 5, 6, 7: one or more sensor devices of the system operate to determine one or more audio events by classifying the sounds detected by the one or more sensor devices and further processing the resulting classes based on a threshold, maxima, etc.); (Hua: Col 11:54-12:3: system additionally includes one or more video input signals record, output, etc. sensed data output sensor data to a user based on a set of criteria). The claim is considered obvious over Gre as modified by Hwa and Hua as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Gre, Hwa, and/or Hua to the modified device of Gre, Hwa, and Hua; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 15 supra and is similarly rejected as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua and by iteration of the processes performed thereby with respect to the disclosed pluralities of cameras sensors, etc. of Gre in view of Hwa in view of Hua and in the manner claimed, for at least the purpose of scaling the system such as to accommodate a large home with multiple emergent conditions; a care facility with a plurality of rooms; or indeed any scaled enterprise requiring monitoring of babies, care stations, inmates, etc. one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claims 20, 21—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 22, 30—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 23, 31—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 24, 32—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 10 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 25, 33—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 11 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 26, 34—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 12 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 27, 35—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 14 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 28, 36—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 15 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 29, 37—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 19 and are similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in concert with claim amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 6/17/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-37 under 35 USC 103 over Greene, Hwang, and Higuchi have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Greene permits a user to stream audio at any time and does not teach a system which cannot output captured audio in response to a user input.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the argument is directed piecemeal to Greene individually rather than providing evidence of the manner in which the claimed invention features over the prior art rejection as a whole by addressing the rejection as formulated. The rejection does not rely on Greene for this contested subject matter. Examiner has modified the rejection above to clarify in response to applicants argument. Applicant’s observation that Greene alone discloses only an automatic cessation is acknowledged, and is why Huang is cited I this regard (please see Greene: ¶ 7; Fig 6). As such Applicants argument is not considered persuasive.
Applicant next argues that there is no motivation to modify Greene to include an operational state where the system cannot output capture audio as doing so would limit a persons ability to check on the baby and that such a modification renders Greene unsatisfactory for its purpose.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument overstates the scope of the claimed limitation as the claim does not address the system or the overall utility but requires the system cannot output audio based on sound captured vie an external device in response to receiving user input. This does not prevent video monitoring, discomfort alerts, or indeed reinitiation of a new time based process upon a subsequent qualifying event. Greene states as much “Method 600 may be repeated continuously to determine whether transmission and/or output of the audio (and/or video) stream should be activated or deactivate,” (please see Greene: ¶ 79). Under the combination the functionality of Greene, that of monitoring a baby and providing alerts, is preserved—the monitoring function is not defeated by a temporary criteria based cessation that the system itself is designed to lift upon a new qualifying event. The modification instead provides bounds upon an additional functional convenience, that of persistent on-demand access to the device sound output between events. Applicant prefers that the modification sacrifices a benefit of Greene, that of persistent access. Such a tradeoff does not negate the obviousness benefit provided by Huang, that of disabling the microphone at the elapse of a time of preset duration to prevent data leakage, etc. (Please see Huang: Col 4: 16-4:20, 14:3-14:5, 17:60-17:67). Such a limiting to a temporal window of access is a recognized privacy and security improvement and a home baby monitor is just the type of device to which such a safeguard stands as a benefit. As such Applicants argument is not considered persuasive.
Applicant next argues that Huang deactivates the microphone “based on a command signal and not based on detecting a respective type of sound.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not mandate that the audio lockout occurs based on detecting the respective sound but is time based. The lockout occurs after elapse of a predetermined time since a third time; and the third time “includes a time at which the respective sound was last detected.” The detected sound is provided by Greene and Hwang, not Huang. Huang is relied on for the post-timer state in which sound cannot be output or accessed. Further this premise mischaracterizes Huang which does not disable the microphone based on a command alone but maintains a timer, compares the elapsed time to a specified duration and upon elapse of the timer sets the microphone status to disabled to restrict access to the audio, prevent data leakage, etc. (please see Hua: Col 17:40-17:67). Such a timer based expiration is consistent with the claimed time based termination and resulting inability to output captured audio. As such Applicants argument is not considered persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments depend materially form those addressed supra and are similarly not considered persuasive. No claims currently stand allowable.
Conclusion
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 PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 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, CAROLYN 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights