DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8 to 9, 11, and 15 to 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0323069) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935).
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Goergen et al. discloses a system, method, and computer program product for presence simulation, comprising:
“at least one processor coupled with a memory; and an audio modulation manager implemented at least in part with a machine learning model and configured to:” – computer system 20 comprises processor 21, and electronic computer storage 24 accessible to the at least one processor to execute behavior simulation code 30 (¶[0059] - ¶[0060]: Figure 1A); presence simulation can be enabled automatically using a suitable sensor, e.g., an audio sensor (“an audio modulation manager”) (¶[0087]: Figure 3); embodiments include a system learning from the usage of a connected lighting system 1 in which real-world occupants are present; data can be entered into a learning system to derive typical patterns (“a machine learning model”) (¶[0114]);
“detect an incoming communication in a smart home environment” – presence mimicking creates an impression of an unoccupied environment, i.e., a home being occupied (¶[0002]); presence mimicking is effected by applying artificial intelligence (AI) behavior imitations to user-defined virtual occupant identity data in order to automatically model the behavior of a virtual occupant (¶[0007]); a behavior simulation algorithm uses a model of an environment, e.g., a home, to generate a sequence of simulated control actions (¶[0025]); environment 2 is a home comprising multiple rooms (¶[0066] - ¶[0067]: Figure 2); user interface 32 cooperates with at least one user input device 19 to receive and interpret user inputs from user 8 (“detect an incoming communication”) (¶[0071]: Figure 3); a mimic instruction 31 causes light system 1 to switch from a manual mode of operation to a presence simulation mode; presence simulation can be implemented using a suitable sensor or sensors, e.g., optical or audio sensors to detect the presence of real world occupants, or of a wireless receiver that is used to track the location of occupant’s phones; presence simulator 35 applies an AI behavior simulation algorithm to identity data to determine when individual virtual personas are at home (¶[0086] - ¶[0088]: Figure 3); here, artificial intelligence in a home environment is equivalent to “a smart home environment”; broadly, a mimic instruction input by a user into input device 19 to switch to a presence simulation mode is “detect an incoming communication”; similarity, an audio sensor that detects a present of occupants provides “an incoming communication”;
“determine, based on the incoming communication, that a simulation of a secondary user presence of at least one other person in the smart home environment would provide an environment of safety and security for a person who is in the smart home environment” – presence mimicking can reduce the chances of someone breaking and entering a user’s home to provide security; mimicking the presence by lighting that automatically turns one or more lights on for an interval during the evening can be an effective way to prevent burglary (“would provide an environment of safety and security for a person who is in the smart home environment”) (¶[0003]); a mimic instruction 31 causes light system 1 to switch from a manual mode of operation to a presence simulation mode (“determine, based on the incoming communication”); presence simulation can be implemented using a suitable sensor or sensors, e.g., optical or audio sensors to detect the presence of real world occupants, or of a wireless receiver that is used to track the location of occupant’s phones (¶[0086] - ¶[0087]: Figure 3); here, mimicking a presence of real world occupants is “a simulation of a secondary user presence of at least one other person in the smart home environment”;
“initiating an outgoing security communication in the smart home environment, the outgoing security communication simulating the secondary user presence of that least one other person in the smart home environment with the person” – a behavior simulation algorithm is applied to user-defined virtual occupant identity data of an electronically-stored virtual occupant profile, and a lighting controller is configured to vary at least one characteristic of light emitted by the at least one luminaire according to the sequence of simulated control actions (¶[0008]); AI behavior simulation simulates interactions between virtual occupants and a lighting system thereby generating a sequence of simulated control actions; based on this AI simulation, light emitted by the at least one luminaire of the lighting system is varied making it appear to an external observer as if this virtual occupant is actually occupying the environment (¶[0011]); based on the simulated room locations and activities, presence simulator 35 generates for each of the virtual occupants, a respective sequence of simulated control actions 36, which is used to drive a lighting controller 40 of lighting system 1; each of the control actions corresponds to an action that could realistically be performed by that virtual occupant given their current location and activity, causing a change in at least one illumination setting that is applied to at least one of the luminaires 4 (¶[0105]: Figure 4).
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Goergen et al. discloses generating lighting control signals to simulate presence of virtual occupants in a home to provide security against burglars. Independent claim 8 is the broadest independent claim, and does not require the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 directed to “an audio modulation manager implemented at least in part with a machine learning model and configured to:” and “delegate an outgoing security communication to at least one media device for playback” or “to cause a media device to: . . . initiate at least one modulated audio file as an outgoing security communication”. Mainly, Goergen et al. is directed to generating signals to control lighting in a home environment for security against burglars to make it appear that someone is at home in accordance with behavior profiles of actual occupants, but does not generate audio with a media device. Still, Goergen et al. discloses an embodiment of audio sensors to automatically enable/disable a presence simulation mode which can be construed as “an audio modulation manager”. Moreover, Goergen et al. discloses a behavior learning model (“a machine learning model”). (¶[0114]) Goergen et al. discloses that simulated activities may include TV watching. (¶[0092] - ¶[0095]) However, Goergen et al. does not provide at least one media device for playback to initiate at least one modulated audio file because this reference is mainly directed to providing presence simulation with lighting and not with audio.
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Harris et al. teaches a media playback system that operates in a plurality of modes in a home. (Abstract) A plurality of modes may include an away mode that a set by a user while away from home, and a playback device may simulate presence of users in the household by playing back audio content. The playback device may be configured to enhance home security. The playback device may include intrusion detection, e.g., glass break sensing on one or more microphones. (¶[0026] - ¶[0027]) Playback devices may utilize a manual setting to switch between operating modes so that a user may schedule an away mode before leaving for a work trip or vacation using a graphical user interface (GUI). (¶[0034]) A media playback system (MPS) is associated with a home environment having a plurality of rooms and spaces, and may be referred to as a ‘home environment’, ‘smart home’, or ‘environment’ 101. (¶[0038]: Figures 1A and 1B) Playback audio content may include audio items in folders/directories. (¶[0111] - ¶[0113]: Figure 1) One embodiment provides an away mode 760d that is intended to be utilized when users are away from media playback system 100. Since users are not expected to be home when playback devices 102 are operating in away mode 760d, configurations 764d are applied in a manner intended to promote security and user privacy. Configurations 764d may include playing back a mix of audio content to simulate presence of users in a household. Playback devices 102 in away mode 760d may switch between various content and take actions to simulate usage. An uninvited guest may be led to believe that users are home by this simulated usage. Playback device 102, to simulate presence in away mode 760d, may play back human voices, e.g., simulated conversation (“a simulation of secondary user presence of at least one other person”). (¶[0168] - ¶[0170]: Figure 7D) Media playback system 100 may select media items in a library. (¶[0171]) Configurations 764d include enabling one or more intrusion detection features to enable intrusion detection via one or more microphones to detect sounds indicative of intrusion, e.g., glass breaking. Playback devices 102 may be configured to switch to operating in away mode 760d when occurrence of one of away mode trigger conditions 766d is detected. (¶[0177] - ¶[0178]: Figure 7D) Harris et al., then, teaches simulating voices of users in a conversation in an away mode that “would provide an environment of safety and security for a person who is in the smart home environment”. Implicitly, media played back from folders/directories in a media library by media playback system 100 are “at least one modulated audio file”. An objective is to provide a media playback system of playback devices including an away mode to simulate presence of users in a household by playing back audio content to enhance home security. (¶[0026] - ¶[0027]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to simulate a secondary user presence of at least one other person in a smart home environment of Goergen et al. by media playback devices to simulate human voices in a conversation as taught by Harris et al. for a purpose of enhancing home security.
Concerning claims 3 and 11, Harris et al. teaches:
“initiating to display a selectable prompt to activate an audio emulation mode” – a playback device may utilize a manual setting to switch between operating modes; a user may set or schedule an away mode using a graphical user interface (GUI) (¶[0034]); here, a graphical user interface (GUI) provides “a display” of “a selectable prompt” for a playback device “to activate an audio emulation mode”;
“modulating the outgoing security communication to simulate the secondary user presence based at least in part on activation of the audio emulation mode” – configurations 764d may include playing back a mix of audio content to simulate presence of users in the household; various zones at media playback system 100 may play back different content at various times through the day and evening to simulate realistic usage; playback devices 102 in away mode 760d may switch between various content and change volume settings (“modulate the outgoing security communication”); playback device 102, to simulate presence in away mode 760d, may play back human voices, e.g., simulated conversation (“to simulate the secondary user presence based at least one part on activation of the audio emulation mode”) (¶[0170]: Figure 7D).
Concerning claims 9 and 16, Harris et al. teaches media playback system 100 may play back different content at various times through the day and evening to simulate realistic usage; playback devices 102 in away mode 760d may switch between various content and change volume settings (“audio modulation”); to simulate presence in away mode 760d, playback devices 102 may play back human voices, e.g., simulated conversation (“wherein the audio modulation manager is configured to cause the media device to delegate the at least one modulated audio file to at least one audio playback device to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person in the smart home environment”). (¶[0170]: Figure 7D).
Concerning claim 17, Harris et al. teaches that configurations 764d include enabling one or more intrusion detection features to enable intrusion detection via one or more microphones to detect sounds indicative of intrusion, e.g., glass breaking; playback devices 102 may be configured to switch to operating in away mode 760d when occurrence of one of away mode trigger conditions 766d is detected. (¶[0177] - ¶[0178]: Figure 7D) Here, intrusion detection of a sound of breaking glass can be construed as “an incoming communication being detected” to trigger playback of a media playback device is “cause the media device to activate an audio emulation mode based at least in part on the incoming communication being detected.”
Claims 2, 4 to 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 18 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0323069) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Paul (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0208163).
Concerning claims 2, 10, and 19, Harris et al. teaches “the audio modulation manager is configured to modulate the outgoing security communication to simulate the secondary user presence based at least in part on activation of the audio emulation mode” – configurations 764d may include playing back a mix of audio content to simulate presence of users in the household; media playback system 100 may play back different content at various times through the day and evening to simulate realistic usage; playback devices 102 in away mode 760d may switch between various content and change volume settings (“modulate the outgoing security communication”); playback device 102, to simulate presence in away mode 760d, may play back human voices, e.g., simulated conversation (“to simulate the secondary user presence based at least in part on activation of the audio emulation mode”). (¶[0170]: Figure 7D). Harris et al. teaches playing back human voices, but does not expressly provide “the outgoing security communication is voiced by the person who is in the smart home environment”.
Concerning claims 2, 10, and 19, Paul teaches dynamic and configurable responses to incoming phone calls (“detect an incoming communication”) by receiving a selection of an option to decline a call with a customized audio message. (Abstract) Audio messages may be generated using text to speech synthesis software, e.g., a speech synthesizer, and at least part of the audio message may be computer generated, e.g., generated by device 104. Some embodiments may include a user 105 pre-recording using a human voice, e.g., the voice of the user, and at least part of the message may be generated by the pre-recorded voice. Sections of the audio message may be pre-recorded by the user 105, and sections of the audio message may be generated on-the-fly by a text to speech synthesis software. Part of the audio message ‘Hello, I am in a meeting. I will call you back in 15 minutes’ may be generated by the text to speech synthesis software, and the section of the audio message ‘You can leave a message after the beep’ may be pre-recorded by the user 105 using his or her voice. In another example, ‘I will call you back in’ may be pre-recorded by the user using his or her voice, and ‘15 minutes’ may be a machine generated voice. (¶[0051] - ¶[0052]: Figure 1) Paul, then, teaches an outgoing communication that is voiced by a person who is a user. An objective is to set a voice message prompt in advance. (¶[0001]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to providing an outgoing security communication to simulate presence of a user by human voices in Harris et al. with a human voice of a person in a home as taught by Paul for a purpose of setting a voice message prompt in advance.
Concerning claims 4 to 5, 12, and 18, Paul teaches audio messages may be generated using text to speech synthesis software, e.g., a speech synthesizer, and at least part of the audio message may be computer generated, e.g., generated by device 104 (“wherein the outgoing . . . communication is computer-generated audio”). Some embodiments may include a user 105 pre-recording using a human voice, e.g., the voice of the user, and at least part of the message may be generated by the pre-recorded voice (“wherein the outgoing . . . communication is pre-recorded audio”). Sections of the audio message may be pre-recorded by the user 105, and sections of the audio message may be generated on-the-fly by text to speech synthesis software. Part of the audio message ‘Hello, I am in a meeting. I will call you back in 15 minutes’ may be generated by the text to speech synthesis software, and the section of the audio message ‘You can leave a message after the beep’ may be pre-recorded by the user 105 using his or her voice. In another example, ‘I will call you back in’ may be pre-recorded by the user using his or her voice, and ‘15 minutes’ may be a machine generated voice. (¶[0051] - ¶[0052]: Figure 1)
Concerning claims 7 and 14, Paul teaches that some embodiments may include a user 105 pre-recording using a human voice, e.g., the voice of the user, and at least part of the message may be generated by the pre-recorded voice. Sections of the audio message may be pre-recorded by the user 105 (“pre-recorded audio communications as the outgoing communications”). (¶[0051] - ¶[0052]: Figure 1) Device 104 may receive a phone call, and a UI window 250b may be displayed on display 104 to provide an indication of a phone call and to decline the phone call with a customized audio message. UI window 250c includes options 254 enabling a user to select a reason from one of possible reasons 260a, 260b, 260c, 260d for which the user is unable to attend to the phone call. An option 260a may be selected for ‘I am in a meeting’. Additional options include ‘I am busy’ 260b, ‘I am playing’ 260c, and ‘I am with the baby’ 260d. (¶[0042] - ¶[0048]: Figures 1 and 2A to 2C) Similarly, Figures 4B and 4C illustrate user interfaces 450a and 450b with customized audio messages. Paul, then, teaches, “initiating a selectable prompt to activate an audio emulation mode” and “initiate a display of one or more selectable pre-recorded audio communications” so that an outgoing audio communication is produced “based at least in part on activation of the audio emulation mode”.
Claims 5 to 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0323069) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Son et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0352895).
Harris et al. teaches generating simulated human voices that are modulated by volume for home security in an away mode. (¶[0170]: Figure 7D) However, Harris et al. does not provide that these human voices are computer-generated, or that they are modulated utilizing at least a tone and a pitch of a related person to a person who is in the home. Son et al. teaches converting messages based on relationship information between a sender and a recipient. (Abstract) An electronic device of the related art may synthesize the received message into a voice and output the synthesized voice. (¶[0003]) At least one voice variable is determined based on relationship information between a sender and a recipient and a message is output according to the determined voice variable. (¶[0009]) Determining a voice variable for outputting the message based on relationship information includes a voice variable for at least one of timbre, pitch, and volume. (¶[0085]: Figure 1) Electronic device 101 may synthesize the contents of the messages to output the messages 412 and 422 in a voice. (¶[0144]: Figure 4) Relationships between persons include family members and friends, and an attribute of an electronic device may be friend, secretary, sibling, parent, worker in a particular job, or child. (¶[0149] - ¶[0150] and ¶[0156]) Attributes may include father, mother, son, daughter, or grandchild. (¶[0169]) Electronic device 101 may determine at least one voice determination variable according to relationship information between the sender and the recipient. Electronic device 101 may store, as the voice determination variable, at least one of a timbre database 1111, a pitch database 1112, and a volume database 1114. Electronic device 101 may include at least one timbre model in timbre database 1111 and at least one pitch model in pitch database 1112. Electronic device 101 may determine at least one of timbre (“a tone”), pitch (“a pitch”), and volume from the databases based on relationship information. (¶[0204] - ¶[0207]: Figures 10 to 11) Son et al., then, teaches synthesized voice (“computer-generated audio”) that is modulated utilizing at least “a tone and a pitch of a related person to a user”. That is, a voice variable for an audio message can be a voice pitch of a father or a child who is related to a recipient. An objective is to output audio messages that enable users to feel like they naturally receive services not from an electronic device but from a human being. (¶[0015]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to generate an audio message using a tone and pitch of a related person as taught by Son et al. to generate simulated human voices in Harris et al. for a purpose of outputting audio messages in a manner that enables users to feel like that are naturally interacting with a human being and not with an electronic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 01 June 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Applicants provide some significant amendments to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and present arguments traversing the prior rejection of the independent claims as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,469,207) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935). Specifically, Applicants argue that Harris et al. may provide an away mode but is not determining to simulate a secondary user presence in response to an incoming communication which is described as a phone call, a video call, a doorbell ring, or a knock at ¶[0022] of the Specification. Additionally, Applicants argue that the invention addresses a different scenario from that in Harris et al. with elderly adults or children that remain in the environment for a person home alone. Here, Applicants state that Harris et al.’s away mode is to simulate a presence when no one is home. Moreover, Applicants argue limitations of claim 2 by alleging the claim language requires modulating the security communication to simulate at least one other person which is not disclosed by Cohen et al.
Applicants’ arguments are at least in part moot in view of new grounds of rejection as directed to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 being obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Goergen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0323069) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935). The rejection no longer relies upon Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,469,207). Rejection of some of the dependent claims continues to rely upon Paul (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0208163) and Son et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0352895). All of the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment. Applicants’ arguments are addressed to the extent that they may be relevant to the new grounds of rejection.
Mainly, Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Because Applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). See MPEP §2111.
Firstly, Applicants’ limitation of “detect an incoming communication in a smart home environment” can be broadly construed and does not require that this communication be a telephone call, a doorbell, or a knock. The ‘incoming communication’ can simply be more broadly construed as setting a mode by a user or a detection of a sound. Goergen et al. discloses that presence simulation may be set through a user interface 32 or may be automatically enabled by an audio sensor. (¶[0086] - ¶[0087]: Figure 3) Similarly, Harris et al. teaches that presence simulation may be set in an away mode at a graphical user interface or by a sound of breaking glass. Goergen et al. and Harris et al., then, disclose and teach “detect an incoming communication”. The incoming communication can be any communication signal and the claim language does not require this signal to be a telephone call, a doorbell, or a knock. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, Applicants claim language does not require that a person be home alone or that a person be an elderly adult or a child, and does not distinguish over an away mode of Harris et al. Goergen et al. discloses simulating a presence of at least one other person by generating a sequence of simulated control actions on lights and Harris et al. teaches simulating a presence of at least one other person with audio by a media player that includes generating human voices. The claim language does not require that a person be home alone at the time presence is simulated. Instead, Applicants’ claim language sets forth a limitation of “would provide an environment of safety and security for a person who is in the smart home environment”, but this ‘would’ construction that not positively set forth that a person is, in fact, at home at the time presence is simulated. Alternatively, Applicants’ claim language can be construed to set forth “a person” who would be at home but is not, in fact, at home, so that “a person” is simulated by a behavior profile of a virtual occupant in Goergen et al. The claim language does not set forth a positive limitation that any person is, in fact, at home, and the claims are not limited to elderly persons or children.
Thirdly, Applicants’ limitation of “modulate the outgoing security communication to simulate the at least one other person” is met by an embodiment at ¶[0170] of Harris et al. Here, Harris et al. teaches simulating presence by a playback device that plays back human voices, and changing the volume levels of content being played back. Broadly, simply changing the volume levels can be construed as “the audio modulation”. The limitation of “audio modulation” does not require changing the voiced audio from that of a younger child or an elderly adult to a voice of a primary homeowner or a capable adult in accordance with a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicants’ arguments, then, are not persuasive. All of the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment. This Office Action is NON-FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Holley et al. and Horling disclose related prior art directed to home monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN LERNER whose telephone number is (571) 272-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 AM-6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/MARTIN LERNER/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2658 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights