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
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochura et al. (US 2021/0089261) in view of Angel (US 2015/0222977).
Regarding claim 1, Kochura discloses a system, comprising:
a wearable device (110) (Fig. 1);
a plurality of sound sensors (112-N) installed in the wearable device (Fig. 1);
an alerting element (haptic device) installed in the wearable device (¶ 0023); and
a controller coupled to the plurality of sound sensors and the alerting element (¶ 0018, 0050, Fig. 4), the controller to:
receive a signal indicative of a sound detected by at least one of the plurality of sound sensors (Fig. 3: 310);
determine whether the sound indicates the presence of a potentially dangerous event (320 and 330) (¶ 0043-0045) by determining whether a volume of the sound exceeds a volume threshold (320 and 330) (¶ 0043-0045: determine when the audio is categorized as being in a range of sound intensities (i.e. a range of sound volumes) and contains spoken words such as “look out”, “beware”, “danger”, “hey you”, etc.; and note that a range is defined by a lower and upper thresholds, so determining that the volume is in the range will include determining that the volume exceeds the lower threshold of the range)
determine a direction of the sound based on the received signal indicative of the sound (340);
if the sound indicates the presence of the potentially dangerous event (330 outputs “Y”), activate the alerting element (350); and
if the sound does not indicate the presence of the potentially dangerous event (330 outputs “N”), not activate the alerting element (395) (Fig. 3).
Kochura is not relied upon to disclose the controller to:
select an environmental profile from a plurality of environmental profiles corresponding to different ambient noise situations; and
that the volume threshold is based on the environmental profile.
In a similar field of endeavor, Angel discloses
to select an environmental profile (mode) from a plurality of environmental profiles corresponding to different ambient noise situations (¶ 0044, 0054: select one of plural modes, each mode corresponding to a different environment such as a traffic junction environment or a classroom or office environment); and
determine whether the sound indicates the presence of a potentially dangerous event by determining whether a volume of the sound exceeds a volume threshold based on the environmental profile (¶ 0030, 0051);
if the sound indicates the presence of the potentially dangerous event, activate an alerting element (¶ 0031); and
if the sound does not indicate the presence of the potentially dangerous event, not activate the alerting element (Fig. 6: NO returns to start instead of issuing alert at 614).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Kochura to: select an environmental profile from a plurality of environmental profiles corresponding to different ambient noise situations; and
to base the volume threshold of Kochura on the environmental profile,
the motivation being to make the alerting of Kochura specific to different environments (Angel - ¶ 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Kochura-Angel discloses the system of claim 1, and Kochura discloses wherein the alerting element comprises a plurality of alerting elements (¶ 0023, 0046), and activating the alerting element comprises activating one or more of the plurality of alerting elements to indicate a direction of the sound (¶ 0023, 0046).
Regarding claim 4, Kochura-Angel discloses the system of claim 1, and Kochura discloses wherein the wearable device is worn on a user's head or a user's torso to permit spatial direction notification (¶ 0031, 0034).
Regarding claim 5, Kochura-Angel discloses the system of claim 1, and Kochura discloses wherein the plurality of sound sensors includes at least three sound sensors (112-1, 112-2, 112-3), respective ones of the sound sensors having primary detection contribution for a sector about the wearable device (¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 6, Kochura-Angel discloses the system of claim 1, and Kochura discloses wherein determining whether the sound indicates the presence of a potentially dangerous event is based on detecting a keyword (¶ 0044).
Claims 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19 recite similar limitations as claims 1-2, 4-6, 1-2, 5-6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above in the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 1-2, 5-6, respectively.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochura in view of Angel in view of Fu (CN 105632096 using an English machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Kochura-Angel discloses the system of claim 1.
Kochura-Angel is not relied upon to disclose wherein activating the alerting element comprises indicating an intensity of the sound.
In a similar field of endeavor, Fu discloses wherein activating the alerting element comprises indicating an intensity of the sound (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein activating the alerting element comprises indicating an intensity of the sound, the motivation being to generate vibrations consistent with intensity of the sound (Fu - ¶ 0055).
Claims 10, 17 recite similar limitations as claims 3, 3, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above in the rejections of claims 3, 3, respectively.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochura in view of Angel in view of Gurijala et al. (US 11145317).
Regarding claim 7, Kochura-Angel discloses the system of claim 1.
Kochura-Angel is not relied upon to disclose wherein determining a direction of the sound based on data from the plurality of sound sensors comprises using a multipath compensation technique.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gurijala discloses using a multipath compensation technique to enhance detection by countering distortions in ambient detection (detx108, col. 22, lines 27-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein determining a direction of the sound based on data from the plurality of sound sensors comprises using a multipath compensation technique, the motivation being to enhance detection by countering distortions in ambient detection (Gurijala - detx108, col. 22, lines 27-40).
Claims 14, 20 recite similar limitations as claims 7, 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above in the rejections of claims 7, 7, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights