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 10-19 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 stored error region associated with a camera preset (decide on when to shift attention by addressing qualified voice activity) (paragraphs: 0056); determining, using a microphone and based on audio associated with a talker, 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) (paragraphs: 0037, 0039, 0040, 0042, 0047); selecting, based on the location of the talker and the error region associated with the camera preset, a camera for capturing an image of the talker (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: 0045, and 0048); 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 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 13, Sarkar and Michot clearly show the method, further comprising determining whether the location of the talker is within the error region, and when it is determined that the location of the talker is within the error region, performing the steps of selecting the camera and transmitting the location of the talker to the camera (Sarkar: paragraphs: 0042, 0047, and 0048).
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 March 16, 2026. Applicant has made an election to Invention II, claims, 10-19. Claims 10-19 are now pending in the present application.
Applicant argues on the Applicant’s Response that the restriction is not appropriate for the claims 1-20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ arguments, these inventions are distinct for the following reasons, first, each invention is completely related to different figure in the specification. Second, Invention I related to receiving a location of a camera preset; determining a camera of a conferencing system to be associated with the location of the camera preset, and determining an error region associated with the camera preset, based on: the location of the camera preset, the location of the microphone, and a coverage area of the microphone; and storing the error region associated with the camera preset (Invention I related to fig. 4, H04N 23/635); Invention II related to retrieving a stored error region associated with a camera preset; determining, using a microphone and based on audio associated with a talker, selecting, based on the location of the talker and the error region associated with the camera preset, a camera for capturing an image of the talker (Invention II is related to fig. 7, H04N 23/695); Invention III related to a plurality of microphones, each of the plurality of microphones having a location and a coverage area; a plurality of cameras (Invention III is related to fig. 6B, H04N 23/90); Thus, Invention of group I is not required Invention of groups II and III, and each invention has different class/subclass. That clearly indicates that the three inventions have different functions as well as different effects. As a result.
Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and have acquired a separate status in the art as shown by their different classification, these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and the search required for each Group is not required for other Group, and these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and have acquired a separate status in the art because of their recognized divergent subject matter, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights