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 Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 2 cancelled. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 22nd, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tangeland et al. (US 9,584,763 B2) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tangeland et al. (US 9,584,763 B2) as modified by Sen et al. (US 9,883,342 B2) and Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) as modified by Sen et al. (US 9,883,342 B2) with Sen et al. teaching the amended features. Due to amendment, prior claim objections have been withdrawn and rejections have been updated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-10, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tangeland et al. (US 9,584,763 B2) in view of Sen et al. (US 9,883,342 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Tangeland et al. discloses an apparatus for acoustic localization (Col. 3, Lines 10-25; Fig. 1-2) comprising:
at least one processor (344; Col. 3, Lines 60-65; Fig. 3);
and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Memory 348 executed by processor 344; Col. 3, Lines 60-67; Fig. 3), cause the apparatus at least to:
detect two or more acoustic signals originating from two or more acoustic sources (Active audio sources A among participants 106; Col. 4, Lines 30-65; Fig. 1,4);
generate a first category of parameters for the two or more detected acoustic signals (First category time-of-arrivals TOAs received at individual microphones; Col. 5, Lines 1-15);
generate a second category parameters for the two or more detected acoustic signals (Second category sound angle of arrival of MA 118 from acoustic sources S with elevation angle E; Col. 5, Lines 1-10; Fig. 4);
use, at least, the first category of parameters and the second category of parameters to generate a timing parameter for the two or more detected acoustic signal (Multiple time-of-arrivals and sound angles of arrivals from microphone have different sample delays (a timing parameter); Col. 5, Lines 10-30); and
use, at least the timing parameter and the first category of parameters to determine an estimate of a location of an object associated with the two or more detected acoustic signals (Sample delay/timing parameter between microphone pairs corresponds to a limited number of locations, combined with multiple pairs results in single possible location, such as position P1 (D1, E1) of object/acoustic sources S from parameters; Col. 5, Lines 10-30; Fig. 4).
Tangeland et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first category of parameters comprises two or more time of flight parameters (First category time time-of-arrivals TOAs received at individual microphones; Col. 5, Lines 1-15). However, Sen et al. teaches wherein the first category of parameters comprises two or more time of flight parameters (Sen: First time of flight 101 at a first location, second time of flight 102 at a second location, and time of flight is calculated multiped times between the two locations ; Col. 2, Lines 1-10,29-35,49-55; Col. 7, Lines 30-55; Fig. 1-2). Sen et al. and Tangeland et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Tangeland et al. with teachings of Sen et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first category of parameters comprises two or more time of flight parameters for the purpose of estimating a position based on length constrains of a unique triangle (Sen: Col. 7, Lines 30-55).
Regarding Claim 3, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the second category of parameters comprises two or more angle of arrival parameters (Structure of second category sound angle of arrival of MA 118 from acoustic sources S with elevation angle E, azimuth angle A, range D; Col. 5, Lines 1-10; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to use, at least, the first category of parameters and the second category of parameters to generate an orientation parameter for the object associated with the detected acoustic signals (Follows since estimate position P1 includes orientation azimuth angle A; Col. 5, Lines 10-30; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 7 wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to use, at least, the orientation parameter and the estimate of the location of the object to estimate an orientation of the object (Orientation azimuth angle A estimates location P1 (D1, E1, A1); Col. 5, Lines 10-30; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to generate one or more additional estimates of the location of the object associated with the detected acoustic signals (Additional estimate as third dimension A of P(D,E,A), P2, and P3; Col. 5, Lines 1-45; Fig. 4-6).
Regarding Claim 10, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 9, wherein an additional estimate of the one or more additional estimates of the location of the object associated with the detected acoustic signals is generated by using an orientation parameter and the second category of parameters (Additional estimate as third dimension A of P(D,E,A). Azimuth angle/orientation parameter A and second category sound angle of arrival of MA 118 from acoustic sources S with elevation E; Col. 5, Lines 1-10; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the object that is to be localized comprises two or more microphones for detecting acoustic signals (See Fig. 4: Since object P1 is known, location of microphones 118 is also known as D1, A1, E1 with respect to P1).
Regarding Claim 16, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the object to be localized is in the same environment as one or more acoustic sources and two or more microphones for detecting acoustic signals (In Fig. 2, 4: see objects to be localized S/participants 106 in environment 204 as acoustic sources S/106 and microphones 118).
Regarding Claim 17, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 with Tangeland et al. additionally disclosing wherein the at least one acoustic signal is detected by multiple microphones (Spaced-apart pairs of microphones MA 118; Col. 4, Lines 65-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-5; Fig. 4). Detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 18, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 17 wherein the apparatus is comprised within a reverse architecture system (In structure of angle E1 of microphone MA 118 with respect to acoustic sources S).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tangeland et al. (US 9,584,763 B2) in view of Sen et al. (US 9,883,342 B2) and Jean et al. (US 11,140,645 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to use an iterative procedure to jointly resolve time of arrival equations and angle of arrival equations to generate the timing parameter (Time of arrival equation = TOA
∆
t
time difference, angle of arrival=
a
r
c
s
i
n
(
∆
t
*
c
/
d
)
Lines 10-30). However, Jean et al. teaches an iterative procedure (Jean: Col. 8, Line 40-67; Fig. 4). Jean et al., Sen et al., and Tangeland et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. with teachings of Jean et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to use an iterative procedure to jointly resolve time of arrival equations and angle of arrival equations to generate the timing parameter for the purpose of determining if the estimated position converges sufficiently to terminate the procedure (Jean: Col. 8, Lines 40-67; Col. 9, Lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 6, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the timing parameter comprises a clock offset. However, Jean et al. teaches wherein the timing parameter comprises a clock offset (Jean: 50; Col. 8, Line 40-67; Fig. 4). Jean et al., Sen et al., and Tangeland et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. with teachings of Jean et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the timing parameter comprises a clock offset for the purpose of position estimation from recorded times of arrival (Jean: Col. 11, Lines 35-45; Col. 12, Lines 40-55).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tangeland et al. (US 9,584,763 B2) in view of Sen et al. (US 9,883,342 B2) and Booij (US 9,209,909 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the object that is to be localized comprises one or more loudspeakers for transmitting acoustic signals. However, Booij (US 9,209,909 B2) wherein the object that is to be localized comprises one or more loudspeakers for transmitting acoustic signals (Booij: In structure of mobile unit 48 emitting acoustic signal; Col. 6, Lines 20-40; Col. 12, Lines 65-67; Col. 13, Lines 1-25; Fig. 5). Booij, Tangeland et al., and Sen et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. with teachings of Booij would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the object that is to be localized comprises one or more loudspeakers for transmitting acoustic signals for the purpose of encoding additional information to increase accuracy of the object’s position (Booij: Col. 6, Lines 55-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-27).
Claim(s) 5 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tangeland et al. (US 9,584,763 B2) in view of Sen et al. (US 9,883,342 B2) and Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al).
Regarding Claim 5, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processor and memory (Memory 348 executed by processor 344; Col. 3, Lines 60-67; Fig. 3) are configured to cause the apparatus to use, at least, the first category of parameters and the second category of parameters (First category time of arrivals TOA, second category sound angle of arrival) to generate an instantaneous timing parameter and using the instantaneous timing parameter to generate a predicted timing parameter.
However, Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) teaches wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to use, at least, the first category of parameters and the second category of parameters generate an instantaneous timing parameter and using the instantaneous timing parameter to generate a predicted timing parameter (Booij: Time offset/transmission schedule as instantaneous timing parameter to generate “more accurate time of arrival”/predicted timing parameter; Para. 0077, 0136-0144). Booij et al., Tangeland et al., and Sen et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. with teachings of Booij et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to use, at least, the first category of parameters and the second category of parameters generate an instantaneous timing parameter and using the instantaneous timing parameter to generate a predicted timing parameter for the purpose of determining most likely object associated with the detected acoustic signal from a plurality of objects (Booij: Para. 0140).
Regarding Claim 11, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 9. Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein an additional estimate of the one or more additional estimates of the location of the object associated with the detected acoustic signals is generated by using first category of parameters and the second category of parameters (First category time, second category sound angle of arrival). However, Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) teaches wherein an additional estimate of the location of the object associated with the detected acoustic signals is generated by using first category of parameters and the second category of parameters (Booij et al.: Previous location estimates further processed by Kalman filter/fusion algorithm as an improved/additional location estimate; Para. 0050-0053,0155-0156. In Fig. 3: Initial position estimate 300 followed by parameters of 302 and additional location estimate 308). Booij et al., Tangeland et al., Sen et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. with teachings of Booij et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein an additional estimate of the location of the object associated with the detected acoustic signals is generated by using first category of parameters and the second category of parameters for the purpose of smoothing and improving position data (Booij: Para. 0156).
Regarding Claim 12, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 9. Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processor and memory (Memory 348 executed by processor 344; Col. 3, Lines 60-67; Fig. 3) are configured to cause the apparatus to process the estimate of the location of the object and one or more additional estimates of the location to generate an adjusted estimate of the location of the object. However, Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) teaches wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to process the estimate of the location of the object and one or more additional estimates of the location to generate an adjusted estimate of the location of the object (Booij et al.: Series of two or more location estimates further processed by Kalman filter/fusion algorithm as an improved/adjusted location; Para. 0050-0053,0155-0156).
Booij et al., Tangeland et al., and Sen et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. with teachings of Booij et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the processor and memory are configured to cause the apparatus to process the estimate of the location of the object and one or more additional estimates of the location to generate an adjusted estimate of the location of the object for the purpose of smoothing and improving position data (Booij: Para. 0156).
Regarding Claim 13, Tangeland et al. as modified by Sen et al. and Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) discloses an apparatus as claimed in claim 12 wherein the adjusted estimate of the location of the object is generated by using one or more fusion estimation algorithms to combine parameters from two or more respective estimates of the location (Booij et al.: Series of two or more location estimates further processed by Kalman filter/fusion algorithm as an improved/adjusted location; Para. 0050-0053,0155-0156).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) in view of Sen et al. (US 9,883,342 B2).
Regarding Claim 19, Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) discloses an apparatus for acoustic localization (Para. 0070-0074; Fig. 1-2) comprising
at least one processor (202,205 with processors; Para. 0075; Fig. 2);
and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (202,205 with memory; Para. 0075; Fig. 2), cause the apparatus at least to:
detect three or more acoustic signals originating from three or more acoustic sources (Sources 2-5 detected at 301; Para. 0077-0081,120; Fig. 1,3);
generate a first category of parameters for the three or more detected acoustic signals (Time of arrival; Para. 0078);
determine if one or more of the detected acoustic signals is an indirect path signal from a transmitter to a receiver (Higher signal strength used for identifying direct path signal; Para. 0085);
estimate a location of an object associated with the detected acoustic signals using at least the first category of parameters and a timing parameter wherein an instantaneous timing parameter is used to estimate the location if it is not determined that one or more of the detected acoustic signals is an indirect path signal from a transmitter to a receiver and a predicted timing parameter is used to estimate the location if it is determined that one or more of the detected acoustic signals is an indirect path signal from a transmitter to a receiver (Time offset/transmission schedule as instantaneous timing parameter in temporal filtering 303 to estimate most likely transmitter 305, to generate “more accurate time of arrival”/predicted timing parameter 306 and therefore its new position location 307; Para. 0077, 0136-0145. Direct-path signals can be input into positioning algorithm where reflections/indirect signals are disregarded and reflections/indirect signals can also assist in estimating location; Para. 0086).
Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first category of parameters comprises two or more time of flight parameters (Time of arrival instead of flight; Para. 0078). However, Sen et al. teaches wherein the first category of parameters comprises two or more time of flight parameters (Sen: First time of flight 101 at a first location, second time of flight 102 at a second location, and time of flight is calculated multiped times between the two locations; Col. 2, Lines 1-10,29-35,49-55; Col. 7, Lines 30-55; Fig. 1-2). Sen et al. and Booij et al. are in similar fields comprising localization. Modifying Booij et al. with teachings of Sen et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first category of parameters comprises two or more time of flight parameters for the purpose of estimating a position based on length constrains of a unique triangle (Sen: Col. 7, Lines 30-55).
Regarding Claim 20, Booij et al. (US 2023/0039932 Al) as modified by Sen et al. disclose an apparatus as claimed in claim 19 wherein the first category of parameters comprises three or more time of flight parameters (In structure of calculated multiple times of Sen: First time of flight 101 at a first location, second time of flight 102 at a second location, and time of flight is calculated multiped times between the two locations; Col. 2, Lines 1-10,29-35,49-55; Col. 7, Lines 30-55; Fig. 1-2 ).
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 JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837