DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a Preliminary Amendment on August 1st, 2023.
Applicant amended the Specification by amending the Title of Invention and adding a Priority statement as the first Paragraph. The Examiner though Objects to the Originally Filed Specification though (for Paragraph / line numberings).
Applicant amended the Claims.
Applicant cancelled claims 9 – 12.
Applicant added new claims 15 – 24.
The pending claims are 1 – 8 and 13 – 24.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 9th, 2023; December 12th, 2024; and January 7th, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “500” [Paragraph 34 describing Figure 3].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract uses legalese language (e.g. “unit for”) instead of being written as a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 54 line 9, the sentence ends with two periods.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processor configured to …” in claims 1 – 4, 6 and 8.
The Examiner notes the claimed “processor” and “memory” are being afforded status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 13 – 17, and 20 – 24 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite the limitation "the analysis" in the last two words of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "analysis processing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "analysis processing" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the partial image" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the claim has indefinite metes and bounds as the claim states “whether or not”, but no decision / output / defining distinction is provided.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claim method and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claim program and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the claim has indefinite metes and bounds as the claim states “whether or not”, but no decision / output / defining distinction is provided.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claim method and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 21, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claim program and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the claim has indefinite metes and bounds as the claim states “whether or not”, but no decision / output / defining distinction is provided.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claim method and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 22, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claim program and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed “predetermined criterion” has Indefinite metes and bounds as the Specification does not provide adequate description or notice of such “criterion” claimed.
Claim limitations:
“analysis processing for the analyzing …” in claims 5 – 7;
“a voice acquisition step of acquiring …” in claim 14;
“a person identification step of identifying …” in claim 14;
“an analysis step of searching …” in claim 14;
“an abnormal situation evaluation step of evaluating …” in claim 14; and
“a sound source position estimating step of estimating …” in claim 24.
has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because in claims 14 and 24 the claims are Indefinite as to the “step of” language is intended to be a “step for” variant and thus invoke Functional Analysis; regarding claims 5 – 7, the “analysis processing” claimed is not clearly tied to the processor or memory claimed and thus is Indefinite as to being a separate unit / entity or not and thus raises an Indefinite conclusion as to invoking Functional Analysis or not. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 21 – 24, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 14 from which they depend and thus are similarly Rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 8, 13 – 14, 16 – 19, and 21 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renkis (US Patent 11,120,274 B2 referred to as “Renkis” throughout), and further in view of Date, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0061044 A1 referred to as “Date” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s November 9th, 2023 IDS] and Wang, et al. (CN-112825553-A referred to as “Wang” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s January 7th, 2026 IDS – the Examiner provides the relied upon translation as NPL].
Regarding claim 13, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 5 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 6 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 21, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 22, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 23, see claim 5 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 24, see claim 6 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 1, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang. The combination teaches
at least one memory storing instructions [Renkis Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 (see at least the serves and ICDs as well as reference characters 120, 170, 310, 320, 860, 862, 890, and 900) as well as Column 10 lines 11 – 57 (input devices has memory and processor), Column 16 lines 46 – 65 (serve has memory / processor), Column 27 lines 18 – 55 and Column 28 lines 17 – 49 (processor / memory with instructions to execute)]; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to [Renkis Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 (see at least the serves and ICDs as well as reference characters 120, 170, 310, 320, 860, 862, 890, and 900) as well as Column 10 lines 11 – 57 (input devices has memory and processor), Column 16 lines 46 – 65 (serve has memory / processor), Column 27 lines 18 – 55 and Column 28 lines 17 – 49 (processor / memory with instructions to execute)]:
acquire a predetermined voice uttered by a person due to the occurrence of an abnormal situation in a monitoring target area [Renkis Figures 3 – 5 (see at least reference character 630) as well as Column 10 lines 9 – 31 and Column 13 lines 19 – 23 (ICDs have microphones), Column 10 lines 58 – 67 (audio capture), Column 17 lines 2 – 36 (audio using to enable input capture – combine with Column 19 lines 43 – 65), and Column 24 lines 1 – 19 and Column 26 lines 2 – 41 (audio stored / analyzed); Wang Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference characters 102, 1021, and 1022) as well as Paragraphs 61 – 64 and 87 – 89 (audio detected using predetermined models / pre-trained models as an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art in which the audio is part of detected abnormal situation / anomaly (obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art)), 101 – 109 (system to detect audio for anomaly / abnormal situation to begin detection / monitoring), and 129 – 133 (sound detected abnormal events located)];
identify the person who uttered the predetermined voice based on features obtained from the predetermined voice [Renkis Figures 3 – 7 as well as Column 6 lines 40 – 65 (associating sound with a person as a known technique), Column 17 lines 2 – 36 (profile of person with audio associated inputs), Column 19 lines 9 – 53 and Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (associating person and audio with the camera / input device to combine with Wang or Date); Date Figures 1 – 2, 7, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 42 (sound of target / person acquired), 54 – 58 (person associated with abnormal sound / situation), and 116 – 120 (sound detected abnormality examples); Wang Figures 1 – 2 and 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 176 – 180 and 183 – 193 (personnel / person detected making anomaly / abnormal audio)];
search for the identified person from a video from a camera shooting the monitoring target area [In combination with next limitation see Wang Figures 2 – 3 and 6 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 107 – 109 (audio data to track / identify source to image person), 166 – 170 (identify person and facial features), 176 – 180 and 183 – 196 (matching / searching for person based on sound and abnormality)] and analyze a facial expression or a motion of the person [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with gestures); Wang Paragraphs 183 – 199 (matching facial features / gestures / expressions to sound / audio source)]; and
evaluate the abnormal situation in the monitoring target area based on a result of the analysis [Renkis Figures 1 – 5 as well as Column 2 lines 21 – 41 (sensor evaluation for abnormal behavior), Column 17 line 2 – Column 18 line 32 (security status determinations made based on audio / images captured), and Column 24 lines 1 – 45 (identification of abnormal / security situations); Date Figures 1 – 2, 7, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 54 – 58 (person associated with abnormal sound / situation), 79 – 82 (face / person detected in abnormal situation) and 116 – 120 (sound detected abnormality examples); Wang Figures 1 – 2 and 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 101 – 109, 176 – 180 and 183 – 193 (personnel / person detected making anomaly / abnormal audio from analysis / models used)].
The motivation to combine Date with Renkis is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of target monitoring with abnormality detection using multiple input devices [Date Paragraphs 2 – 6] in order to improve triggering / activating detection of the scene / environment [Date Paragraphs 5 – 6 and 15 – 17 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Wang with Date and Renkis is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of monitoring systems including high-traffic areas [Wang Paragraphs 1 – 5] to improve decision making and monitoring for real time performance [Wang Paragraphs 3 – 7 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 3, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang. The combination teaches
the processor is configured to execute the instructions to [See claim 1 for citations] analyze whether or not the motion of the person is similar to a predefined series of motions [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with predetermined gestures / movement / human patterns combinable with the motion recognition in Date Paragraph 118)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang.
Regarding claim 4, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang. The combination teaches
the processor is configured to execute the instructions to [See claim 1 for citations] analyze whether or not the motion of the person is similar to a predefined gesture [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with predetermined gestures / movement / human patterns combinable with the motion recognition in Date Paragraphs 118 – 121)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang. The combination teaches
analysis processing for the analyzing the facial expression or the motion of the person [See claim 1 “analyze a facial …” limitation for citations in combination with the next limitation] is executed when the predetermined voice is detected, and is not executed before the predetermined voice is detected [Renkis Column 17 lines 2 – 36 (audio using to enable input capture – combine with Column 19 lines 43 – 65 rendering obvious “not executed” claim limitation further illustrated in examples of Date Paragraphs 117 – 123), and Column 24 lines 1 – 19 and Column 26 lines 2 – 41 (audio stored / analyzed after enabling input capture / ICDs); Wang Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference characters 102, 1021, and 1022) as well as Paragraphs 61 – 64 and 87 – 89 (audio detected using predetermined models / pre-trained models as an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art in which the audio is part of detected abnormal situation / anomaly (obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art) to initiate camera / imaging), 101 – 109 (system to detect audio for anomaly / abnormal situation to begin detection / monitoring), 129 – 133 (sound detected abnormal events located), 169 – 176, and 187 – 200 (camera locates the sound source to image of a person for further analysis)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang.
Regarding claim 6, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang. The combination teaches
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to [See claim 1 for citations] estimate a sound source position of the predetermined voice [See claim 1 first limitation for citations and additionally Wang Figures 8 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 126 – 130 (sound source localization using known techniques), 136 – 141, and 187 – 200 (camera locates the sound source to image of a person)], and
analysis processing for the analyzing the facial expression or the motion of the person [See claim 1 “analyze a facial …” limitation for citations in combination with the next two limitations] is performed only on video data from the camera shooting the area including the sound source position [See claim 1 first limitation for citations and additionally Wang Figures 8 – 10 as well as Paragraphs 126 – 130 (sound source localization using known techniques), 136 – 141, and 187 – 200 (camera locates the sound source to image of a person for further analysis)], among a plurality of the cameras [Renkis Figures 1 and 6 – 7 (see at least reference characters 101, 102, 105, 106) as well as Column 25 line 24 – Column 26 line 13 (multiple camera system)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang.
Regarding claim 7, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang. The combination teaches
analysis processing for the analyzing the facial expression or the motion of the person [See claim 1 for citations of the same / similar limitation] is performed only for the partial image including the sound source position in the image constituting the video [Date Figures 1, 2, 7, and 10 as well as Paragraphs 54 – 58 (person associated with abnormal sound / situation), 89 – 91 and 95 (occluded / objects in images analyzed / part of images considered for analysis and abnormality detection) and 116 – 121 (parts / occluded features of images analyzed / considered in the analysis of images to find a sound source location); Wang Figures 1 – 2 and 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 176 – 180, 183 – 193 (personnel / person detected making anomaly / abnormal audio for analysis and pointing the camera to generate tracking video thus partial images are used), and 195 – 205 (partial / pointing camera from initial sound to track thus rendering obvious use of partial images claimed)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang. The combination teaches
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to [See claim 1 for citations] output a predetermined signal when the evaluation of the abnormal situation satisfies a predetermined criterion [Renkis Figures 1 – 4 as well as Column 14 lines 28 – 52 (alarms signaled based on situation / security situation evaluated), Column 15 lines 3 – 28, Column 16 lines 10 – 26, and Column 25 lines 4 – 23 (additional rules / evaluations for alarms); Date Figures 8 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 117 – 125 (various abnormal / security situations with criteria for gestures / expressions for outputting / signaling event) ].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang.
Claim(s) 2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renkis, Date, Wang, and further in view of Ricci (WO 2014/172312 A2 referred to as “Ricci” throughout).
Regarding claim 15, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 2, Renkis teaches a system and server for monitoring and recording with several devices to detect abnormal / security scenarios with the use of predefined gestures for comparisons. Date teaches abnormality detection and suggests sound detection for starting to record / monitor areas. Wang provides additional sound source / audio processing details including additional triggers to use for recording in abnormal scenarios. Ricci teaches systems analyzing facial expressions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Renkis to include additional audio / sound source considerations as taught by Date and to further modify the system in view of triggers for audio and abnormal situations detected as taught by Wang with facial expression considerations taught by Ricci. The combination teaches
the processor is configured to execute the instructions to [See claim 1 for citations] analyze whether or not the facial expression of the person is a predetermined facial expression [Renkis Figures 2 – 5 as well as Column 14 lines 12 – 52 (motion of objects / people for alarm / monitoring), Column 21 line 38 – Column 22 line 24 (relating facial expression / features with predetermined gestures / movement / human patterns); Wang Paragraphs 183 – 199 (matching facial features / gestures / expressions to sound / audio source); Ricci Figures 12 and 22 as well as Paragraphs 289 and 381 – 382 (facial expressions / emotions detected and compared)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, and Wang.
The motivation to combine Ricci with Wang, Date, and Renkis is to combine features in the detecting user / presence of people and relationships / system control based on people detected [Ricci Paragraphs 3 – 6] in order to improve user experiences and communication with electronic devices [Ricci Paragraphs 6 and 22 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Renkis, Date, Wang, and Ricci which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References found which may raise ODP Considerations based on amendments to the claims: Kajiki (US PG PUB 2024/0087328 A1 referred to as “Kajiki” throughout) in which the claims were amended to add heat detecting features. Sendoda (US PG PUB 2021/0055705 A1 referred to as “Sendoda” throughout) was Patented but is missing features regarding motion / movement ranges of people to track.
Sendoda (US PG PUB 2021/0048336 A1 referred to as “Sendoda 36” throughout) is Abandoned and thus cannot raise ODP issues.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487