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 .
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.
Claim 1 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 43 “recites” abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG:
Step 2A – Prong One
Claim 1 and 43 recites capturing acoustic data, determining whether an acoustic sample contains an ultrasonic burst corresponding to a signature, and identifying an actual gunshot. These limitations amount to collecting data, analyzing the data, and making a classification determination, which constitutes a mental process (evaluation and judgement).
Step 2A – Prong Two
The additional elements (device for capturing acoustic data, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, ultrasonic frequency threshold, sample window, filtering, FFT, spectrogram generation) merely implement the abstract idea using generic data acquisition and signal processing components and limit the field of use to ultrasonic acoustic analysis. These elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or any other technology and do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - No Inventive concept
The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components performing generic data acquisition and signal processing functions. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and are directed to abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-11, 17-21 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Davis et al (US 2021/0233555).
Per claim 1, Patterson teaches a system for detecting a gunshot comprising (abstract):
a device for capturing acoustic data that is potentially sound emanating from an actual gunshot (0087 teaches capturing acoustic data sound emanating from a gun);
a processor including non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising computer- executable instructions, the computer-executable instructions causing the processor to determine whether an acoustic sample contains an ultrasonic burst that corresponds to an ultrasonic signature of an actual gunshot having ultrasonic component sound frequency content in excess of 30kHz (0106 teaches processor including non-transitory readable medium. 0017, 0048 and 0081 teaches short duration, high-energy, wide-spectrum ultrasonic burst…corresponds to unique ultrasonic signature. 0017 and 0019 teaches ultrasonic band above 20 kHz to 200 kHz),
wherein the acoustic sample is a portion of the captured acoustic data starting at or prior to an initial acoustic impulse within the captured acoustic data and ending at a predetermined sample length (0041 teaches selected timeframe starts with the initial muzzle blast. Fig. 6 and 0093 teaches the impulse or initial portion…greatest portion…ultrasonic…contained within this short bursts. 0081 teaches determining whether the spectrogram or sampled portions therefor contains the characteristic bursts),
whereby the determination is used to identify an actual gunshot and distinguish it from that of a sound burst that is not an actual gunshot (0015-0016, 0048, 0052 and 0061 teaches the ultrasonic burst/signature as the discriminator to reduce false positives/negatives and determine if a sound burst is an actual gunshot or not).
Per claim 2, Davis teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: determine the initial acoustic impulse of the captured acoustic data (0041 and Fig. 6 teaches…starts with the initial muzzle blast. 0093 focuses on the impulse or initial portion of a gunshot’s sound waveform. 0038 teaches starting with the initial muzzle blast), and trim the captured acoustic data to generate the acoustic sample (0081 teaches mathematically transforming the captured data and determining whether the spectrogram or sampled portions thereof contains the ultrasonic burst. 0037 teaches selected timeframe used to calculate the FFT spectrum power plot. 0038 teaches the selected timeframe of the FFT plot has been shortened and starts with the initial muzzle blast. 0039 further teaches the selected timeframe has been shortened. 0040 teaches the selected timeframe selecting the tail end. So, selecting timeframe from the captured waveform for FFT/spectrogram processing exactly trimming captured acoustic data).
Per claim 3, Davis teaches wherein the predetermined sample length is in the range of 0.008 seconds or less (Fig. 6 and 0041 teaches window of .0075 seconds starting at the initial muzzle blast).
Per claim 10, Davis teaches wherein the processor is local to the device (0022-0023, 0065, 0074 and 0087 teaches edge devices and local processing).
Per claim 11, Davis teaches wherein the processor is remote to the device (0022-0023, 0065 and 0103 teaches sending raw samples to remote/cloud processing and recognition).
Per claim 17, Davis teaches wherein the device captures the acoustic data at a sampling rate that is at least twice the highest discrete ultrasonic frequency sought to be captured (0053 teaches Nyquist/sampling rate at least twice fmax).
Per claim 18, Davis teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to generate the acoustic sample by calculating a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) in accordance with any known FFT algorithm (0021, 0061, 0066 and 0087 teaches FFT analysis and FFT algorithm families).
Per claim 19, Davis teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to generate the acoustic signal by creating a spectrogram having a spectrum of frequencies of the captured acoustic data as it varies with time (0081, 0020-0021 teaches three step method includes creating a spectrogram and checking for the burst).
Per claim 20, Davis teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to generate the acoustic signal by creating a spectrum of frequencies of the captured acoustic data as it varies with time (0021, 0089 and 0094 teaches spectrogram/STFT concept that generate signal as it varies with time).
Per claim 21, Davis teaches wherein, responsive to a gunshot determination, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to record at least one of a date and time of occurrence of the determination (0102 teaches device may publish gunshot data and timestamp).
Per claim 43, see rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (US 2021/0233555).
Per claim 4, Davis in rejection of claim 3 teaches sample length is less than .008 but does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined sample length is in the range of 0.004 seconds or less.
As mentioned in in Fig. 6 and 0093, the impulse or initial portion…the resulting power spectrum shows that the greatest portion of ultrasonic content is within this short burst. Thus, Davis teaches the concept of using sub 8 millisecond impulse window to isolate the portion of the gunshot waveform where ultrasonic energy is most concentrated. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Davis’s teaching that the ultrasonic content is concentrated in the initial impulse and rapidly diminishes thereafter, to further shorten Davis’s disclosed short window to .004 seconds or less in order to better isolate the initial ultrasonic burst and reduce inclusion of later waveform portions that exhibit greater decay and lower ultrasonic connect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a shorter range than .0008 seconds as taught by Davis, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (US 2021/0233555) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Rose (US 2019/0025149).
Per claim 5, Davis teaches capturing acoustic data including ultrasonic content and processing it to determine whether a gunshot occurred, including sampling/monitoring a wide spectrum including ultrasonic content above 20kHz to 200kHz and using the ultrasonic burst content for gunshot detection/classification, see paragraph 0019-0021. 0060-0061 teaches using processing stages including ultrasonic test/gating to identify candidate events and further analyze candidate events. 0087 teaches monitoring/capturing an audio stream with ultrasonic capable sensor and then applying a filter to filter out non-gunshot/background sounds. In rejection of claim 1, Davis also teaches omit/remove ultrasonic frequency in the excess of 30kHz. But, Davis does not explicitly teach wherein component sound frequency content below 30kHz is removed from the captured acoustic data to generate the acoustic sample.
In an analogous art, Rose teaches ultrasonic tracking method (abstract). Rose further teaches wherein component sound frequency content below 30kHz is removed from the captured acoustic data to generate the acoustic sample (0122 teaches band-limiting ultrasonic sensing using a high-pass filter that removes low-frequency content….the high pass filter removes frequencies below 25kHz. 0007 teaches eliminating most acoustic noise which might otherwise trigger a false alarm. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis’s ultrasonic gunshot-detection processing to incorporate Rose’s high-pass filtering to remove low-frequency components because Rose explains that operating in the ultrasonic range is done “to eliminate most acoustic noise” and prevent “false alarm”. Further selecting a cutoff of 30kHz rather than about 25kHz would have been an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable because the purpose of the cutoff is to remove lower-frequency noise while retaining ultrasonic content for detection.
Per claim 6, Davis in rejection of claim 2 and 0081 teaches mathematically transforming the captured data and determining whether the spectrogram or sampled portions thereof contains the ultrasonic burst. 0037 teaches selected timeframe used to calculate the FFT spectrum power plot. 0038 teaches the selected timeframe of the FFT plot has been shortened and starts with the initial muzzle blast. 0039 further teaches the selected timeframe has been shortened. 0040 teaches the selected timeframe selecting the tail end. So, selecting timeframe from the captured waveform for FFT/spectrogram processing exactly trimming captured acoustic data. But, Davis does not explicitly teach remove the component sound frequency content below 30kHz to generate the acoustic sample.
However, Rose in 0122 teaches band-limiting ultrasonic sensing using a high-pass filter that removes low-frequency content….the high pass filter removes frequencies below 25kHz. 0007 teaches eliminating most acoustic noise which might otherwise trigger a false alarm. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis’s ultrasonic gunshot-detection processing to incorporate Rose’s high-pass filtering to remove low-frequency components because Rose explains that operating in the ultrasonic range is done “to eliminate most acoustic noise” and prevent “false alarm”. Further selecting a cutoff of 30kHz rather than about 25kHz would have been an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable because the purpose of the cutoff is to remove lower-frequency noise while retaining ultrasonic content for detection.
Per claim 7, see rejection of claim 5 and 6.
Per claim 8, Rose teaches wherein the acoustic sample is amplified after the component sound frequency content below 30kHz is removed (Rose in paragraph 0122 teaches filtering the sensed ultrasonic signal using a high-pass filter that removes lower-frequency content below about 25kHz. Rose in 0123 teaches amplifying after the low-frequency is removed….the signal is then input into a programmable gain amplifier circuit which is set to amplify the signal).
Per claim 9, Rose teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: compare the captured acoustic data to a predetermined dB impulse threshold (0123 teaches sampling the signal via ADC and stores samples for processing. 0129 teaches microcontroller 90 averages the sensor data values…to obtain a value representing the average sound pressure level… this average value is then compared against an alarm threshold level stored in memory. Rose’s alarm threshold level stored in memory is a predetermined threshold expressed in dB. See also 0123 that teaches mapping 50 dB-150 dB to voltage levels and digitally compensating. 0129 teaches average sound pressure level compared to alarm threshold), and identify the initial acoustic impulse as a chronologically first portion of the captured acoustic data to exceed the predetermined dB impulse threshold (Rose discloses that once the averaged captured acoustic data first exceeds the alarm threshold, Rose starts a timer (delay function) and proceeds into alarm evaluation…this necessarily designates the chronologically first captured portion exceeding the threshold as the initiating event (initial impulse). 0129 teaches if the average value is greater than the alarm threshold, a timer is started. This “timer started” condition is triggered upon the first occurrence where the captured/averaged acoustic data exceeds the predetermined threshold-thereby identifying the “initial acoustic impulse” as the first portion exceeding the threshold.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (US 2021/0233555) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Weeks (US 2012/0032834).
Per claim 12, Davis does not explicitly teach a sensor for sensing movement or orientation of the device, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: compare a magnitude of the movement or orientation sensed by the sensor to a predetermined movement threshold, and generate an alert output if the magnitude of the movement or orientation is greater than the predetermined movement threshold.
However, in analogous art of movement sensor Weeks teaches accelerometer for tamper protection (abstract). Weeks further teaches a sensor for sensing movement or orientation of the device (0008 teaches use of an accelerometer to detect relative movement of the sensor device), wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: compare a magnitude of the movement or orientation sensed by the sensor to a predetermined movement threshold (0010 teaches detecting movement...meeting a predetermined threshold of movement. 0045 teaches predetermined threshold can represent a change in acceleration or rate of change of device movement. 0032 teaches relative movement data above a predetermined threshold…change in device movement or acceleration meeting a specific threshold), and generate an alert output if the magnitude of the movement or orientation is greater than the predetermined movement threshold (0010 teaches tamper detection response includes transmitting a notification that indicates movement meeting the predetermined threshold. Also see paragraph 0008, 0014, 0044 and 0046). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Week’s movement/orientation threshold detection and alert notification into the Davis’s system to provide a predictable technical benefit of tamper/disturbance detection and operational integrity.
Per claim 13, see rejection of claim 12 wherein Weeks teaches an accelerometer.
Per claim 14, Weeks teaches wherein the sensor is one or more of a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a mechanical tilt switch, a mercury tilt switch, a single axis attitude sensor, or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (0044 teaches a mercury tilt switch).
Per claim 15, Weeks teaches comprising a power storage device for providing power to the device and processor (0009 teaches processor, a memory coupled to the processor, power circuitry configured to receive a supply of power. 0062 teaches power source can be a battery).
Per claim 16, Davis does not explicitly teach wherein the power storage device comprises a capacitor. However, in rejection of claim 15, Weeks teaches a battery for providing power. But, Davis in view of Weeks doesn’t explicitly teach power storage device comprises a capacitor. However, its well known in the art that capacitor is a common power storage device used in electronic devices to provide storage energy. Therefore, examiner will take Official Notice, that before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a known power storage device that includes a capacitor, because doing so yields the predictable technical benefit of improving power stability/hold-up performance (e.g. buffering short power interruptions, providing instantaneous current for peak loads, and reducing processing reset risk), which is routine and known in a battery-powered electronic devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vyssotski et al (US 2017/0248696) paragraph 0123
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686