DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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 10-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0097995 A1; hereinafter Sarkar) in view of Michot (Pub. No.: US 2016/0277712 A1; hereinafter Michot)
Consider claim 10, Sarkar clearly shows and discloses a method, comprising: retrieving a plurality of stored error regions, each stored error region of the plurality of stored error regions associated with a respective camera preset of a plurality of camera presets (the interaction may then be extended to a plurality of robots with two or more human attendees) (paragraph 0049), wherein each camera of a plurality of cameras is associated with at least one camera preset of the plurality of camera presets (the interaction may then be extended to a plurality of robots with two or more human attendees; decide on when to shift attention by addressing qualified voice activity, the dynamic rotation of the robot, based on the continually updated knowledge repository, Only qualified direction of arrivals (DOAs) are used for the audio perception. Further the audio perception is complimented by visual perception employing real time face detection and lip movement detection (abstract), wherein the step of validating comprises validating the set of clusters of the qualified DOAs and the current position of each of the two or more attendees; f there are two or more DOAs, the robot tries to minimize rotation and cover both the DOAs. If the speakers associated with the two or more DOAs are not covered in the viewing area, the robot tries to bring the detected face of the speaker into the viewing area) (paragraphs: 0047, 0049, 0056); determining, based on audio associated with a talker and captured by a microphone, a location of the talker (dynamically associate each of the qualified DOAs, at step 208, with one of the two or more attendees, thereby identifying a current position of each of the two or more attendees, audio-visual perception based speaker localization) (paragraphs: 0002, 0037-0038, 0037, 0039, 0040, 0042, 0047); selecting, based on the location of the talker and the plurality of stored
error regions, a camera of the plurality of cameras for capturing an image of the talker, wherein the location of the talker is within an error region of the plurality of stored error regions, the error region is associated with a camera preset of the plurality of camera presets, and the camera is associated with the camera preset (rotate to the average DOA of a particular cluster if the voice activity captured is associated with the particular cluster, rotate only if the angular difference between two consecutive DOA) (paragraphs: 0042, 0047-0049 and fig. 5); and transmitting the location of the talker to the camera to cause the camera to point towards the location of the talker (he one or more processors 104 are configured to dynamically rotate the robot, at step 212, such that attention of the robot is shifted to at least one of the attendees being a speaker by enabling visual perception for the robot based on a computed angle of rotation using one or more Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) rules and the continually updated knowledge repository) (paragraphs: 0043, 0045 and 0048); however, Sarkar does not specifically disclose another example for determining, using a microphone and based on audio associated with a talker, a location of the talker.
In the same field of endeavor, Michot clearly specifically disclose another example for determining, using a microphone and based on audio associated with a talker, a location of the talker (wherein sound localization is used to determine active speaker location) (abstract, paragraph 0001, 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Michot into teaching of Sarkar for the purpose of providing another example for determining a location of the talker.
Consider claim 11, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, wherein the error region associated with the camera comprises an area surrounding the location of the camera preset (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0040-0043).
Consider claim 12, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, further comprising determining whether the camera preset has been configured, and when it is determined that the camera preset has been configured, performing the steps of selecting the camera and transmitting the location of the talker to the camera (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0037, 0039, 0040, 0042, 0047).
Consider claim 14, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, further comprising determining whether the location of the talker is within an inclusion zone associated with the microphone, and when it is determined that the location of the talker is within the inclusion zone, performing the steps of selecting the camera and transmitting the location of the talker to the camera (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0045, and 0048).
Consider claim 15, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, wherein the inclusion zone comprises a user-defined area in an environment where the camera is configured to automatically track the talker, based on the location of the talker determined by the microphone. (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0044).
Consider claim 16, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, further comprising when it is determined that the location of the talker is within the inclusion zone, determining the error region based on: the location of the talker, the location of the microphone, and a coverage area of the microphone (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0037, 0039, 0040, 0042, 0047).
Consider claim 17, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, wherein determining the error region comprises determining the error region based on acoustics of an environment where the microphone is located (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0039, 0040, 0042, and 0047).
Consider claim 18, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, wherein determining the error region comprises determining the error region based on a physical configuration of an environment where the microphone is located (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0042, 0047, and 0048).
Consider claim 19, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, wherein determining the location of the talker comprises determining the location of the talker by processing the audio associated with the talker with an audio localization algorithm (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0045, 0042, and 0047).
Response to Arguments
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on July 30, 2026. Applicant amended claim 10 and cancelled claim 13. Claims 10-12, and 14-19 are now pending in the present application.
Applicant argues on the Applicant’s Response that Sarkar and Michot fail to teach the limitation “determine a particular call of the plurality of concurrent conference calls as a foreground call by detecting, in audio of the particular call, an audible mention of a name of a user of the information handling system and/or a predetermined keyword, and designating the particular call as the foreground call in response to the detecting; raise a volume level of the foreground call relative to another of the plurality of concurrent conference calls; and transmit audio input from the audio input device to the foreground call."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ arguments regarding claims 1, 8, and 15. The original Specification states “determine an error region associated with the camera preset, based on: the location of the camera preset, the location of the one of the plurality of microphones, and the coverage area of the one of the plurality of microphones; and when a location of a talker is determined to be within the error region associated with the camera preset” (SPEC: paragraph 0009). Sarkar teaches the one or more processors 104 are configured to dynamically associate each of the qualified DOAs, at step 208, with one of the two or more attendees, thereby identifying a current position of each of the two or more attendees. Again, the one or more processors 104 are configured to continually update, at step 210, a knowledge repository comprising the qualified DOAs, the generated set of clusters and the current position of each of the two or more attendees. In an embodiment, the knowledge repository is comprised in the one or more data storage devices 102; If the speakers associated with the two or more DOAs are not covered in the viewing area/error region, the robot tries to bring the detected face of the speaker into the viewing area (paragraphs: 0042, 0047 and fig. 5). Sarkar teaches the dynamic rotation of the robot, based on the continually updated knowledge repository, wherein the step of validating comprises validating the set of clusters of the qualified DOAs and the current position of each of the two or more attendees (paragraphs: 0049). Moreover, Sarkar teaches the interaction may then be extended to a plurality of robots with two or more human attendees) (paragraph 0049). Therefore, Sarkar and Michot teaches the above limitation as broadly claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571- 270- 1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571- 272- 7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
