Final Rejection
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
The amendment filed 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 51-60 and 62-75 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 63. Accordingly, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) of claims 54, 62-63 and 66-67. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to newly added claim(s) 71-75 have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 51, applicant states “the PTO has not demonstrated that the cited references teach or suggest "grouping multiple optical events and multiple acoustic events, based on repetition of time differences between corresponding pairs of optical events and acoustic events, wherein each pair comprises an optical event and a corresponding acoustic event, thereby deriving at least one optical- acoustic group, thereby enabling differentiation of multiple event sources, based on the grouping, in a situation of overlapping acoustic events and/or overlapping optical events," as recited in currently amended independent claim 51.”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Fowler teaches and illustrates (fig.3) the acoustic track 300 and infrared track 302 (optical) and detecting multiple acoustic waves 310 and 312 and detecting multiple optical pulses 320, 322, 324, 326, 328, and 330 and the overlap between the acoustic track pulses is associated with one or more gunshots, and the overlap between the infrared track pulses is associated with the gunshots thus, as illustrated in fig.3, 310 and 340 which are the first group and 312 and 342 which are the second group respectively are the gunshots which are determined by both an acoustic and optical event occurring which are overlapped. Thus, the claimed optical-acoustic group (310 and 340 and/or 312 and 342) are derived in a situation of overlapping acoustic event (acoustic track 300) and/or overlapping optical events (infrared track 302). (See Col.12, lines 20-45 and Fig.3 of Fowler)
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 62, applicant states “The cited references, do not, and cannot, disclose this recitation of claim 62.”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Fowler teaches a second acoustic (722) and infrared (732) sensor and teaches information collected from the different fields of view can be used to determine a direction to a gunshot event, distance to a gunshot event, and so on. This information can also be used to track shooters, combatants, etc. Thus, Fowler properly teaches determining of the direction (direction to a gunshot event) of the at least one event source (gunshot event) comprises determining a second direction (second acoustic (722) and infrared (732) sensor) of the event source associated with the at least one optical-acoustic group. (See Col.16, lines 1-10, Col.12, lines 20-45, Fig.3 of Fowler) Examiner notes that the claim is written as an or statement specially the language recited is “wherein at least one of the following is true” and then claims 3 or limitations.
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 64, applicant states “The cited references do not, and cannot, disclose this recitation of claim 64.” examiner respectfully disagrees. Fowler teaches the flow 1200 includes performing a second level evaluation 1230. The second level evaluation comprises assembling results from one or more gunshot sensors. The flow 1200 can comprise assembling results from the gunshot sensor along with a second gunshot sensor in a gateway device. The assembling can be accomplished independent of the location for the gunshot sensor and the location for the second gunshot sensor. (See Col.20, lines 13-20 and Fig.12 of Fowler) Examiner notes that the claim is written as an or statement specially the language recited is “wherein at least one of the following is true” and then claims multiple or limitations.
Regarding applicants arguments to the USC 101 rejection, as indicated by the courts in CONTENT EXTRACTION v. WELLS FARGO BANK. The courts stated that “…CET’s claims merely recite the use of this existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates. See id. There is no “inventive concept” in CET’s use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. At most, CET’s claims attempt to limit the abstract idea of recognizing and storing information from hard copy documents using a scanner and a computer to a particular technological environment. Such a limitation has been held insufficient to save a claim in this context. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715– 16 (Fed Cir. 2014); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355. Examiner notes that the focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers (processing circuitry) as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers (processing circuitry) as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality (processing circuitry) nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer and processing circuitry or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Examiner notes, that the acoustic sensor and the optical sensor are used for their intended purposes (collecting, organizing and transmitting data). Applicant is not improving the acoustic sensor and the optical sensor. As indicated by the courts in CONTENT EXTRACTION v. WELLS FARGO BANK. The courts stated that “…CET’s claims merely recite the use of this existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates. See id. There is no “inventive concept” in CET’s use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. At most, CET’s claims attempt to limit the abstract idea of recognizing and storing information from hard copy documents using a scanner and a computer to a particular technological environment. Such a limitation has been held insufficient to save a claim in this context. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715– 16 (Fed Cir. 2014); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355.
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.
Claim 65 recites the limitation " the acoustic-event time intervals " and “the optical-event time interval” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 65 recites the limitation " the second individual acoustic events" and “the second individual optical events” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 51-60 and 62-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility launder 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
Analysis has been updated based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claims 51, 69 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 51 (exemplary) recites a system.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a system that comprises the limitations of:
processing circuitry;
at least one optical sensor;
at least one acoustic sensor;
(a) receiving, from the at least one optical sensor and the at least one acoustic sensor that are time-synchronized, optical data indicative of a plurality of optical events, and acoustic data indicative of a plurality of acoustic events, associated with at least one event source that is a firing weapon;
(b) grouping multiple optical events and multiple acoustic events, based on repetition of time differences between corresponding pairs of optical events and acoustic events, wherein each pair comprises an optical event and a corresponding acoustic event, thereby deriving at least one optical-acoustic group, thereby enabling differentiation of multiple event sources, based on the grouping, in a situation of overlapping acoustic events and/or overlapping optical events;
(c) identifying the plurality of optical events and the plurality of acoustic events, based at least on the optical data and on the acoustic data;
(d) determining a distance and a direction of the at least one event source, relative to one or more of the at least one optical sensor and the at least one acoustic sensor, wherein the determination is based at least on the plurality of optical events, the plurality of acoustic events, the optical data and the acoustic data.
The claimed process simply describes series of steps for a system, based on receiving, identifying, and determining. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed with pen and paper and is an idea of itself. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mental processes” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations of using a processing circuitry, sensors and a firing weapon to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The processor is a general-purpose processor (see Page.16, lines 20-28 of the specification) that performs general-purpose functions of receiving, identifying, and determining data. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and have additional elements present in the claims of processing circuitry, sensors and a firing weapon. These additional limitations of processing circuitry, sensors and a firing weapon are mere generic implementations of storing and compiling/organizing data which can be performed by pen and paper and falls under enumerated group of “mental processes” and do not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 51, 69 and 70.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 52-60 and 62-75 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add any additional limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 51-60, 62-75 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 51-60, 62-65, 67-70 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler (US 10627292 B1) in view of Amelsberg (WO 2012107070 A1, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 51, Fowler teaches a computerized system configured to detect optical and acoustic events, the system configured to be operatively coupled to at least one optical sensor and at least one acoustic sensor, the computerized system comprising a processing circuitry configured to perform the following method. (Abstract, Col.8, lines 54-63, Col.13, lines 63-67, Fig.1)
Fowler also teaches (a) receiving, from the at least one optical sensor and the at least one acoustic sensor that are time-synchronized, optical data indicative of a plurality of optical events, and acoustic data indicative of a plurality of acoustic events, associated with at least one event source that is a firing weapon. (Col.4, lines 40-49, Col.17, line 17-Col.18, line 11, Fig.8)
Fowler also teaches (b) grouping multiple optical events and multiple acoustic events, based on time differences between corresponding pairs of optical events and acoustic events, wherein each pair comprises an optical event and a corresponding acoustic event, thereby deriving at least one optical-acoustic group, thereby enabling differentiation of multiple event sources, based on the grouping, in a situation of overlapping acoustic events and/or overlapping optical events. (Col.12, lines 20-45, Fig.3) Fowler teaches and illustrates (fig.3) the acoustic track 300 and infrared track 302 (optical) and detecting multiple acoustic waves 310 and 312 and detecting multiple optical pulses 320, 322, 324, 326, 328, and 330 and the overlap between the acoustic track pulses is associated with one or more gunshots, and the overlap between the infrared track pulses is associated with the gunshots thus, as illustrated in fig.3, 310 and 340 which are the first group and 312 and 342 which are the second group respectively are the gunshots which are determined by both an acoustic and optical event occurring which are overlapped. Thus, the claimed optical-acoustic group (310 and 340 and/or 312 and 342) are derived in a situation of overlapping acoustic event (acoustic track 300) and/or overlapping optical events (infrared track 302).
Fowler also teaches (c) identifying the plurality of optical events and the plurality of acoustic events, based at least on the optical data and on the acoustic data. (Col.13, lines 31-34, Col.12, lines 10-45, Figs.3, 5)
Fowler also teaches (d) determining a distance and a direction of the at least one event source, relative to one or more of the at least one optical sensor and the at least one acoustic sensor, wherein the determination is based at least on the plurality of optical events, the plurality of acoustic events, the optical data and the acoustic data. (Col.17, lines 13-16, Col.12, lines 20-45, Figs.3,8)
Fowler does not explicitly teach repetition of time differences between corresponding pairs of optical events and acoustic events.
Amelsberg teaches repetition of time differences between corresponding pairs of optical events and acoustic events. (Page.2, lines 32-38, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate repetition of time differences between corresponding pairs of optical events and acoustic events as taught by Amelsberg in order to calculate the position of an object from the direction and the distance of the object.
Regarding claims 69-70, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 51. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 69-70, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 69-70 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 51.
Regarding claim 52, Fowler teaches wherein the optical data is associated with at least one optical-data stamp, wherein the acoustic data is associated with at least one acoustic-data stamp, wherein the determination of the distance in said step (d) comprises performing the following: (i) determining at least one optical-event stamp of the at least one optical event, based on the at least one optical-data stamp; (ii) determining at least one acoustic-event stamp of the at least one acoustic event, based on the at least one acoustic-data stamp; (Col.16, lines 1-10, Col.12, lines 10-45, Figs.3, 7)
Fowler does not explicitly teach optical-data time stamp and acoustic-data time stamp and determining at least one first time difference between the at least one acoustic- event time stamp and the at least one optical-event time stamp; and (iv)determining the distance based on the at least one first time difference.
Amelsberg teaches optical-data time stamp and acoustic-data time stamp and determining at least one first time difference between the at least one acoustic- event time stamp and the at least one optical-event time stamp; and (iv)determining the distance based on the at least one first time difference. (Page.2, lines 32-38, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate optical-data time stamp and acoustic-data time stamp and determining at least one first time difference between the at least one acoustic- event time stamp and the at least one optical-event time stamp; and (iv)determining the distance based on the at least one first time difference in order to calculate the position of an object from the direction and the distance of the object.
Regarding claim 53, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true:(A) the determination of the distance is based on a speed of sound and a speed of light; (B) the at least one optical event is associated with a flash of firing of a projectile; (C) the at least one acoustic event is associated with at least one of: a blast associated with the firing of a projectile, a shock wave associated with the firing of a projectile; (D) the at least one optical sensor comprises an optical diode; (E) the at least one optical sensor comprises a camera; (F) the at least one acoustic sensor comprises a microphone; (G) the at least one event source comprises one event source; (H) in said step (d), the determining of the direction of the at least one event source is based at least on the optical data; (I) a distance accuracy of the determined distance is less or equal to 10 meters; (J) a distance accuracy of the determined distance is less or equal to 1 meter; (K) a distance accuracy of the determined distance is less or equal to 0.1 meter; or (L) the at least one acoustic sensor comprises one acoustic vector sensor, wherein the determining of the direction of the at least one event source is based at least on the acoustic data. (Col.4, lines 54-60)
Regarding claim 54, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: -- the weapon is one of a small arm, an artillery piece, a mortar, a rocket, a missile; or -- the weapon is an automatic weapon. (Col.4, lines 54-56)
Regarding claim 55, Fowler teaches wherein the at least one acoustic sensor comprises a plurality of acoustic sensors, wherein the determining of the direction of the at least one event source is based at least on the acoustic data, wherein the determining of the direction of the at least one event source is based at least on a first acoustic-event stamp associated with a first acoustic sensor of the plurality of acoustic sensors and at least one second acoustic-event stamp associated with at least one other acoustic sensor of the plurality of acoustic sensors. (Col.17, lines 13-16, Col.18, lines 54-62, Col.25, lines 19-28, Claims 4, 6, 10-11)
Fowler does not explicitly teach an acoustic-event time stamp associated with a first acoustic sensor of the plurality of acoustic sensors.
Amelsberg teaches an acoustic-event time stamp associated with a first acoustic sensor of the plurality of acoustic sensors. (Page.2, lines 32-38, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate an acoustic-event time stamp associated with a first acoustic sensor of the plurality of acoustic sensors in order to calculate the position of an object from the direction and the distance of the object.
Regarding claim 56, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: -- the determining of the direction of the at least one event source is based at least on a second acoustic-event time difference between the first acoustic-event time stamp and the at least one second acoustic-event time stamp; or -- the method further comprising: (e) classifying optical-acoustic-related events associated with the optical event(s) and the acoustic events. (Col.21, lines 24-31)
Regarding claim 57, Fowler teaches wherein the classifying is based on optical patterns associated with the optical events and on acoustic patterns associated with the acoustic events, thereby enabling an enhanced-accuracy classification of the optical-acoustic-related events, having enhanced accuracy compared to a second classification which is based on only one of on optical patterns and acoustic patterns. (Col.2, lines 43-49)
Regarding claim 58, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: -- an object is moving from the event source, wherein the event source is a weapon, wherein the object is a projectile fired from the weapon, wherein the method further comprising:(f) determining a speed of movement of the object, based at least the determined distance and on one or more acoustic-event time stamps corresponding to at least one shockwave acoustic event; or -- an object is moving from the event source, wherein the event source is a weapon, wherein the method further comprising: (g) determining a direction of movement of the object, based at least on the determined distance of the at least one event source, on the direction of the at least one event source and on the speed of movement of the object. (Col.2, lines 43-49, Col.18, lines 7-11, Col.16, lines 8-10, Col.17, lines 13-16)
Regarding claim 59, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: -- wherein said step (d)(iii) comprises determining a plurality of first time differences between acoustic-event time stamps and corresponding optical-event time stamps, wherein said step (d)(iv) comprises determining the distance of the at least one event source based at least on the plurality of first time differences, thereby deriving an enhanced-accuracy distance of the at least one event source, having enhanced accuracy compared to a second distance determined based on a second single time difference between a single acoustic-event time stamp and a corresponding single optical-event time stamp; or -- wherein said step (d)(iii) comprises determining a plurality of first time differences between acoustic-event time stamps and corresponding optical-event time stamps, wherein said step (d)(iv) comprises determining the direction of the at least one event source based at least on the plurality of first time differences, thereby deriving an enhanced-accuracy direction of the at least one event source, having enhanced accuracy compared to a second direction determined based on a second single time difference between a single acoustic-event time stamp and a corresponding single optical-event time stamp. (Col.2, lines 43-49, Col.12, lines 20-45, Col.15, lines 43-56, Fig.3)
Regarding claim 60, Fowler does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the following is true: -- the determining the distance comprises calculating an average of a plurality of determined distances; -- the determining the direction comprises calculating an average of a plurality of determined directions; or -- the determining of the at least one first time difference comprises calculating an average time difference of the plurality of first time differences.
Amelsberg teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: -- the determining the distance comprises calculating an average of a plurality of determined distances; -- the determining the direction comprises calculating an average of a plurality of determined directions; or -- the determining of the at least one first time difference comprises calculating an average time difference of the plurality of first time differences. (Page.4, line 43-Page.5, line 2, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate wherein at least one of the following is true: -- the determining the distance comprises calculating an average of a plurality of determined distances; -- the determining the direction comprises calculating an average of a plurality of determined directions; or -- the determining of the at least one first time difference comprises calculating an average time difference of the plurality of first time differences in order to calculate the position of an object from the direction and the distance of the object.
Regarding claim 62, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: (1) the grouping of the optical events and of the acoustic events comprises: a. determining a plurality of first time differences between a plurality of acoustic-event time stamps of the plurality of acoustic events and a single optical-event time stamp of each optical event of the plurality of optical events; and b. identifying the repetition of the time differences based on the determined plurality of time differences; (2) the grouping comprises matching individual acoustic events of the at least one optical-acoustic group with individual optical events of the at least one optical-acoustic group the determination of the distance in said step (d) is based on the repeated time differences of the at least one optical-acoustic group; or (3) the determining of the direction of the at least one event source comprises determining a second direction of the event source associated with the at least one optical-acoustic group. (Col.16, lines 1-10, Col.12, lines 20-45, Fig.3)
Regarding claim 63, Fowler teaches wherein the repetition of the time differences correlates to a single event-source distance. (Col.21, line 60-Col.22, line 9)
Regarding claim 64, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: -- the at least one event source comprises a plurality of event sources, wherein said step (b) comprises deriving a plurality of optical-acoustic groups, wherein the method further comprising: (i) associating an optical-acoustic group of the plurality of optical-acoustic groups with an event source of the plurality of event sources; -- the method further comprising performing, prior to said step (h):(i) perform an initial grouping of optical events based on directions of the optical events and/or optical patterns associated with the optical events, thereby deriving initial group(s) of related optical events. (j) perform an initial grouping of acoustic events based on directions of the acoustic events and/or acoustic patterns associated with the acoustic events, thereby deriving initial group(s) of related acoustic events; or -- the method further comprising: (k) determining optical-event time intervals associated with a group of optical events of the at least one optical-acoustic group; (I)determining acoustic-event time intervals associated with a group of acoustic events of the at least one optical-acoustic group; and (m) classifying the at least one event source based at least on the acoustic-event time intervals and/or on the optical-event time intervals. (Col.20, lines 13-20, Col.12, lines 20-45, Figs.3, 12)
Regarding claim 65, Fowler teaches wherein the classifying of the at least one event source comprises: i. determining an event rate based at least on the acoustic-event time intervals and/or on the optical-event time intervals; and ii. classifying the at least one event source based at least on the determined event rate. (Col.21, lines 23-31, Col.12, lines 10-45, Figs.13-14, 3)
Regarding claim 67, Fowler does not explicitly teach wherein said step (d)(iii) comprises determining time differences of the second individual acoustic events and corresponding optical-event time stamps of the second individual optical events, thereby deriving a plurality of time differences, wherein said step (d)(iv) comprises determining at least one of the distance of the at least one event source and the direction of the at least one event source based on the plurality of time differences, thereby deriving at least one of an enhanced-accuracy distance of the at least one event source and an enhanced-accuracy direction of the at least one event source, having enhanced accuracy as compared to a second distance, and a second direction, determined based on a second single time difference between a single acoustic-event time stamp and a corresponding single optical-event time stamp.
Regarding claim 68, Fowler teaches A system comprising: I. the computerized system of claim 51; II. the at least one optical sensor; and III. the at least one acoustic sensor. (Abstract, Col.8, lines 54-63, Col.13, lines 63-67, Col.4, lines 40-49, Col.17, line 13-Col.18, line 11, Col.13, lines 31-34, Col.12, lines 10-45, Figs.1, 3, 5, 8)
Regarding claim 75, Fowler teaches the method further comprising:(p) associating at least one blast acoustic event with at least one shockwave acoustic event, based at least on the grouping. (Col.18, lines 1-11)
Claim(s) 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Amelsberg and Midavaine (US 9953226 B2)
Regarding claim 66, Fowler teaches wherein at least one of the following is true: -- the determining of an event rate comprises calculating at least one of an average acoustic time interval and an average optical time interval; or -- the classifying of the at least one event source based at least on the determined event rate. (Col.21, lines 24-31, Col.12, lines 10-45, Figs.13-14, 3)
Fowler does not explicitly teach a table lookup.
Midavaine teaches a table lookup. (Col.2, lines 62-62, Claims 1, 7, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate a table lookup as taught by Midavaine in order to classify events of firing threats type of a scene.
Claim(s) 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Amelsberg and Candy (US 20220036913 A1).
Regarding claim 72, Fowler does not explicitly teach the method further comprising:(n) performing the differentiation of the multiple event sources, thereby enabling performance of at least one countermeasure.
Candy teaches the method further comprising:(n) performing the differentiation of the multiple event sources, thereby enabling performance of at least one countermeasure. (Paragraphs 16-18, 25, 47, Claims 8, 12-13, Fig.11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate the method further comprising:(n) performing the differentiation of the multiple event sources, thereby enabling performance of at least one countermeasure as taught by Candy in order to direct doors to be locked, authorities to be notified, lights to be strobed, and so on.
Regarding claim 73, Fowler does not explicitly teach the method further comprising:(o) performing the at least one countermeasure.
Candy teaches the method further comprising:(o) performing the at least one countermeasure. (Paragraphs 16-18, 25, 47, Claims 8, 12-13, Fig.11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate the method further comprising:(o) performing the at least one countermeasure as taught by Candy in order to direct doors to be locked, authorities to be notified, lights to be strobed, and so on.
Claim(s) 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Amelsberg, Candy and Smith (US 5970024 A).
Regarding claim 74, Fowler does not explicitly teach wherein the performing of the at least one countermeasure enables performance of counter-fire at the at least one event source.
Smith teaches wherein the performing of the at least one countermeasure enables performance of counter-fire at the at least one event source. (Col.7, lines 7-11, Col.9, lines 28-32, Fig.11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fowler to incorporate wherein the performing of the at least one countermeasure enables performance of counter-fire at the at least one event source as taught by Smith in order intercept a threat before it arrives at a user or area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 71 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights