DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 7/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Specification
37 C.F.R. 1.72 states “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible.”
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, an electronic device comprising a driving part configured to drive the electronic device, and that the electronic device is configured to obtain audio information in an indoor space while travelling through the driving part. However, this is unclear, as “while travelling through the driving part” implies while traversing the driving part. For purposes of examination, the claim will be examined as “… while travelling when driven by the driving part, …”.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 4
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and recites, in part, to “identify whether an object related to the detected sound exists based on information about audio stored on the map”. However, this is unclear as claim 1 already requires an identified object based on a detected sound based on information about audio stored on the map, and therefore an object related to the detected sound already exists.
Claim 4 recites, in part, “to project a message including a text recognizing the sound around the human object”. However, this is unclear. Is the text a recognition of the sound, or is the text a representation of the recognized sound? Additionally, is the message in response to a sound recognized around (i.e., within a predetermined range) of the human object, or is the message projected around the human object?
Claim 4 recites, in part, to “control the driving part to identify a location”. However, this is unclear, as the driving part is configured to drive the electronic device (Applicant’s specification, 0087: “The driving part may generate and transmit a physical force to the wheels included in the electronic device”) and not a processor/computer/controller.
Regarding claim 4 as a whole, the claim is unclear, as the claim requires to:
“identify whether an object related to the detected sound exists based on information about audio stored on the map”, i.e., determine if an object that made a sound is registered on the map;
“based on identifying that an object related to the detected sound exists, identify whether the sound is generated by a registered human object or a registered inanimate object”, i.e., determine if the registered object is a human or not;
“based on identifying that the detected sound is sound generated by the registered human object, control the driving part to identify a location of the registered human object and move to the location of the human object”, i.e., if the registered object is human and it made the sound, go to the human (implies locating human);
“based on the human object existing at the moved location, control the projection part to project a message including a text recognizing the sound around the human object”, i.e., if the human is in the identified spot, provide an output to the human such that the human is informed about the sound the human made at the location it was made?
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected as per claim 4.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and recites, in part, “based on […] the human object not existing at the moved location”. However, this is unclear, as claim 4 already requires the human existing at the moved location (“move to the location of the human object”).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected as per claim 5.
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 recites, in part, to “control the driving part to output a notification message to the user”. However, this is unclear, as the driving part is configured to drive the electronic device (Applicant’s specification, 0087: “The driving part may generate and transmit a physical force to the wheels included in the electronic device”).
Additionally, claim 8 recites, in part, to “output a notification message to a user and move to a location where the detected sound is generated and control the projection part to projection a message including information about the sound at the location where the sound is generated.” However, this is unclear. The claim requires to output a notification message to a user with no further detail, then to move to the location where the sound was generated and then project a message including information about the sound where it was generated?
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
In view of the indefiniteness issues outlined above with respect to claim 8 and claim 4 upon which it depends, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretations of the limitations of the claim, and it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. “As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” MPEP 2173.06(II).
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected as per claim 8.
In view of the indefiniteness issues outlined above with respect to claim 18 and claim 14 upon which it depends, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretations of the limitations of the claim, and it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. “As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” MPEP 2173.06(II).
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, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUNG (US20200094398A1) in view of MAGGIORE (US20160100265A1) (hereinafter – “YOUNG-MAGGIORE”).
Regarding claim 1
YOUNG teaches an electronic device comprising:
a driving part configured to drive the electronic device;
a microphone configured to receive audio; and
a camera (Abstract: “A robot in a location interacts with a user. The robot includes a camera, an image recognition processor, a microphone […] robot moves around and creates a model of the location […] robot communicates with the user” [0032]: robot is a machine that is capable of location motion such as a vacuum cleaning robot, robot comprises a microphone and a camera).
YOUNG also teaches wherein the robot comprises a projection part configured to project an image (Abstract: “robot communicates with the user” [0011], [0035]: robot may include a video projector [0039]: “robot 110 may use text or an image to communicate with user 130, and transfer the text or the image to user 130 via wireless transceiver 122 and another device, such as TV 140, a handheld device such as a smartphone, or any other device capable of presenting text and/or an image” [0039]: robot may use a primary display such as an image projection).
YOUNG’s mobile robot configured to move around and create a model of a location, recognize changes, recognize objects of interests, beings and situations such that the robot can communicate with the user if it determines a if a situation is undesired (Abstract). Thus, the robot collects and stores information, as it moves around an environment, about objects of interest, situations, user preferences, the environment which it is moving around in, and makes control decisions using the collected and stored information according to a control program.
Accordingly, YOUNG also teaches:
one or more processor communicatively coupled to the driving part, the microphone, the camera, the projection part, and the memory,
wherein one or more computer programs includes computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively cause the electronic device to perform the functions of collecting and storing information, as the robot moves around an environment, about object of interest, situations, user preferences, the environment which it is moving around in, and makes control decisions using the stored and collected information according to a control program ([0033]: robot configured to: autonomously move around in a location, create a model of the location and to recognize and track changes in the location, and to monitor and/or follow a user around a location; [0065]-[0067]: implementing via software (i.e., computer programs), stored in a tangible and non-transitory memory, instructions stored in memory are executed by one or more processors “control logic, when executed by one or more processors, may be operable to perform that which is described in particular embodiments” implies the one or more processors communicatively coupled to the driving part, the microphone, the camera and the projection part).
Thus, YOUNG teaches an electronic device comprising:
a driving part configured to drive the electronic device; a microphone; a camera; a projection part configured to project an image; memory storing one or more computer programs; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the driving part, the microphone, the camera, the projection part, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individual or collectively are capable of causing the electronic device to perform computer implemented functions.
Regarding the computer implemented function limitations of claim 1 and
YOUNG teaches an electronic device/robot capable of implementing the claimed computer implemented functions, as outlined above.
YOUNG also teaches to:
obtain information about audio generated by an object located in an indoor space through the microphone while travelling through the driving part, and obtain an image of the object through the camera ([0033]: “Robot 110 is configured to autonomously move around in location 100. It may use camera 112, microphone 116, image recognition processor 114 and/or voice assistant 120 to create a model of location 100” [0040]: “robot 600 may be configured to determine that an object comprises an object of interest by applying deep-learning techniques on local images and/or local sounds”, FIG. 4 illustrates an indoor space FIG.7 illustrates a robot monitoring the state of an object of interest, such as an appliance (e.g., washing machine) robot configured to determine that an object comprises an object of interest based on images);
obtain information [0014]: the robot is configured to “autonomously determine that an object is an object of interest by applying deep-learning techniques on local images and local sounds. The embodiment may determine, remember, and report placement of an object of interest” [0033]: robot autonomously moves around in a location and uses camera and microphone “to create a model of location 100 and to recognize and track changes in location 100” thus YOUNG teaches or at least suggests building an internal spatial model (i.e., a map) of the space that associates identified objects of interests with their locations within the space. [0043]: discloses monitoring the state of an object of interest, such as an appliance like a washing machine, such that an operating issue of the appliance can be identified based on audio information collected for the purposes of alerting a user of the issue “robot 700 may here and interpret the noise, and alert the user that the object of interest 710 has a stability issue and needs attention”).
YOUNG is not relied on to obtain information about expected audio. However, YOUNG implies that the robot must have information about the appliance’s normal operating sound in order to determine that the appliance is not operating in a normal state.
However, MAGGIORE in an analogous art explicitly teaches that “diagnosis of a machine can be made by capturing and analyzing sound generated while operating the machine” ([0003]).
MAGGIORE teaches how to obtain such expected audio information and store that information in database such that audio information collected at a later time can be analyzed to determine the operating state of an appliance using the baseline, expected audio information ([0037]: database may store audio data of machine/processing device, audio data of machine includes “normal operating sounds” of the machine, [0038]: database capable of associated normal operating sounds of machine with information indicating machine is in a normal state, [0039]: audio data stored in database may be recorded and collected during actual operations of machine, [0042]: machine identified using image captured by camera; [0046]: “identify a state of the processing device 22 using the audio signal and the identification information received […] retrieve audio data stored in the database 40 in association with the identification information of the processing device 22. The use of the identification information of the processing device 22 can limit the audio data subject to search exclusive to that processing device 22, which leads to faster search with enhanced reliability. The identification module 162 may be configured to identify the state of the processing device 22 by analyzing the audio signal captured by the sensing device 12 based on the audio data retrieved by the retrieving module 1620”).
YOUNG is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of mobile robots configured to interact with a user. MAGGIORE is analogous art as it is reasonably pertinent because it addresses the same sound-based machine monitoring problem of the claimed invention as it teaches using stored machine specific audio signatures to determine the machine state to alert a user.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of MAGGIORE to the teachings of YOUNG such that MAGGIORE’s subroutine of generating and using a database containing the normal operating sound of unique machines could have been implemented with YOUNG’s electronic device configured to monitor and identify an operating state of appliance(s) using audio data for the purposes of providing reference audio data upon which to make the determination. Combining these yields a predictable results of a mobile home robot that uses a database of previously recorded appliance sounds (i.e., expected audio) associated with each appliance to more accurately determine whether the current sound is indicative of a problem and to alert the user.
Additionally, as YOUNG’s “robot moves around and creates a model” of the space, and can determine, remember and report placement of objects of interest/appliances and operating states associated with the objects of interest/appliances, and MAGGIORE teaches obtaining and storing in a database the normal operating sound of unique machines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when implementing MAGGIORE’s audio database method in YOUNG’s robot, to associate the obtained and stored normal operating sounds of the unique machines with their existing object entries of YOUNG’s model, thus storing both “information about audio generated by the object and information about the expected audio on a map corresponding to the indoor space.”
Thus, YOUNG-MAGGIORE teach an electronic device configured to: obtain information about audio generated by an object located in an indoor space through the microphone while travelling through the driving part, and obtain an image of the object through the camera, and
obtain information about expected audio
YOUNG also teaches to:
based on sound being detected within the indoor space, identify an object related to the detected sound based on information about audio stored on the map ([0042]: “robot 700 may use local or remote sounds to monitor the state of object of interest” [0057]-[0060]: robot is configured to use incoming data streams of images and audio to recognize objects of interest, categorize object of interest, and determine the status of the selected recognized item [0014]: “may determine, remember, and report placement of an object of interest”), and
control the projection part to project a message including information about the sound based on information about the related object and the sound ([0042]: robot may hear and interpret the noise, and alert the user that the object of interest has an issue and needs attention).
Regarding claim 11
YOUNG teaches a method of controlling an electronic device ([0065]: methods may be implemented in software or in hardware). The remaining limitations are rejected as per claim 1 outlined above.
Regarding claim 19
YOUNG teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions to be executed by one or more processors ([0065]: Methods stored in a tangible and non-transitory memory, and executed by a single or by multiple processors).
The remaining limitations are rejected as per claim 1 outlined above.
Regarding claim 2
YOUNG-MAGGIORE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
YOUNG also teaches the electronic device comprises a communication interface configured to communicate with a server ([0032]: Wireless transceiver 122 may be configured to use any protocol such as WiFi, Bluetooth, etc., and any other protocol used for RF electromagnetic links, [0070]: processing can be performed at different locations by different processing systems, [0071]: a server is an example of a processing system).
MAGGIORE also teaches to:
PNG
media_image1.png
586
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MAGGIORE, FIG. 1 teaches communicating with a server comprising a database via a network
obtain identification information of the object based on the image of the object ([0042]: ID detector may be imaging device such as a camera and configured to detect identification information of machine [0045]: receiving module 160 receives the identification information of the machine detected by the ID detector);
transmit the obtained identification information of the object to an external server through the communication interface ([0046]: identification module 162 may be configured to identify a state of the machine using the audio signal and the identification information received at the receiving module 160, identification module 162 may include retrieving module configured to retrieve audio data stored in the database via the network), and
obtain information about expected audio that could be generated by the object from the external server ([0038]: database stores audio data of normal operating sounds of the machine, [0047]: identification module 162 may identify the state of the machine using the information indicating the possible state of the machine stored in the database in associated with the identified audio data, Fig. 1 shows the database separate from the audio analyzer device implying communications with an external server to reference the information about the normal operating sounds/expected audio).
Regarding claim 12
YOUNG-MAGGIORE teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 12 are rejected as per claim 2.
Regarding claim 20
YOUNG-MAGGIORE teaches the elements of claim 19 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are rejected as per claim 2.
Regarding claim 3
YOUNG-MAGGIORE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MAGGIORE also teaches to obtain information about urgent audio requiring an urgent response ([0037]: database may store audio data of each machine in associate with the identification information of that machine, audio data of a processing device may include sounds induced by the machine, the sounds induced by the machine may include sounds of alarms provided on the machine).
YOUNG teaches to associate a location with a machine and store the urgent audio on a map corresponding to the indoor space (Abstract: robot moves around and creates a model of the location and recognizes changes, [0014]: robot may determine, remember, and report placement of an object of interest, [0044]: “can learn situations from moving around and observing the location with all its sensors, and associating observations with its place in the location. It can apply artificial intelligence techniques, including deep learning and data analysis, to define, classify, or categorize situations, and to ease the process of recognizing the situations”).
Regarding claim 13
YOUNG-MAGGIORE teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are rejected as per claim 3.
Claims 4-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUNG-MAGGIORE in view of YU (US20180221240A1) (hereinafter “YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU”).
Regarding claim 41
YOUNG-MAGGIORE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
YOUNG also teaches:
identify whether an object related to the detected sound exists based on information about audio stored on the map ([0033], [0044]: teaches a situationally aware robot configured to move around a location and monitor the location for situations, wherein recognizing the situation comprises using data collected by the robot’s microphone and camera, and “can learn situations from moving around and observing the location with all its sensors, and associating observations with its place in the location. It can apply artificial intelligence techniques, including deep learning and data analysis, to define, classify, or categorize situations, and to ease the process of recognizing the situation”, i.e., the robot is intelligent and can recognize changes in its environment. The robot is also configured to determine, remember, and report placement of objects of interest (0014). Thus, the reference implies the robot is configured to identify objects of interest, refer to a model to associate the object of interest, and if no association is present, register a new object of interest in the model);
based on identifying that an object related to the detected sound exists, identify whether the sound is generated by a registerer human object or a register inanimate object (Abstract, [0010], [0017], [0033], [0059]: “analyzing at least one of the one or more data streams to recognize an object of interest, a being, or a situation […] A being may be the user”), and
control the projection part to project a message including a text recognizing the sound around the human object ([0038]: embodiments may alert user, [0039]: robot may use an image projection to show user 510 communication that may include an alert and/or text message).
YOUNG-MAGGIORE are not relied on to control the driving part to identify a location of the registered human object and move to the location of the human object.
However, YU in analogous art teaches to register a human object ([0058]: “robot may be activated only when receiving the voice of a particular user”) and to identify a location of the registered human object and move to the location of the human object ([0059]: “driving device 1 may determine the user's location based on the user's voice and drive the guide robot to move to the user's location”).
YU is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of mobile robots configured to interact with a user. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of YU to the teachings of the YOUNG-MAGGIORE combination such that YU’s subroutine of locating and moving to a user could have been implemented in YOUNG-MAGGIORE’s electronic device configured to communicate with the user for the purpose of responding to the device being summoned by the user. YU teaches that a user may summon the electronic device ([0072]: user may summon the guide robot), thus providing the motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 14
YOUNG-MAGGIORE teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 14 are rejected as per claim 4.
Regarding claim 5 YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations are not invoked, as a registered human was determined to exist at a location where the robot moved to (claim 4).
However, YOUNG also teaches:
based on the human object being an unregistered person [0036]: “robot 300 accepting commands from an authorized user 310 and rejecting commands from an unauthorized user 320 […] robot 300 ignores unauthorized user 320 even without rejection by authorized user 310”, i.e., robot is capable of differentiating between an authorized/registered human and an unauthorized/unregistered human; [0051]: “robot 910 capturing, recording and documenting a non-regular situation” [0052]: “non-regular situation 900 features a burglary in progress. Whereas robot 910 may already have taken or be taking steps to mitigate this undesired situation by calling a security company or the police, it may hide to avoid detection, and it may capture and record non-regular situation 900 as it unfolds” [0053]: robot “may periodically present key events to the user” 0051-0053 teaches the robot is able to determine that a burglar/unregistered person is in the indoor space, that the robot may hide to avoid detection and that it may capture and record the burglary while in progress, thereby suggesting that the robot is configured to hide while capturing and recording the burglary while in progress, which also implies registering the unregistered person on the map, [0033]: “Robot 110 is configured to autonomously move around in location 100. It may use camera 112, microphone 116, image recognition processor 114 and/or voice assistant 120 to create a model of location 100 and to recognize and track changes in location 100”, 0033 teaches/suggest registering an unregistered object, [0038]: embodiments may alert user, [0039]: robot may use an image projection to show user 510 communication that may include an alert and/or text message).
Regarding claim 15
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are rejected as per claim 5.
Regarding claim 6
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations are not invoked, as a registered human was determined to exist at a location where the robot moved to (claim 4).
However, YOUNG teaches to:
based on identifying that the detected sound is generated by the registered inanimate object, determine an importance of the detect sound [0043]: “state of object of interest 710 may be or include a finished task, or a problem that requires user attention. Robot 700 may determine a priority for alerting the user based on the type of task that has finished, or otherwise progressed to a different stage, or on the urgency or type of problem that needs to be solved”) and;
control the projection part to project a message including information about the sound at a current location or at a location where the sound is generated according to the importance of the detected sound ([0038]: embodiments may alert user, [0039]: robot may use an image projection to show user 510 communication that may include an alert and/or text message).
MAGGIORE teaches to compare the detected sound according to a prestored standard ([0046]).
Regarding claim 16
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are rejected as per claim 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU in view of PERRY (US20210160675A1).
Regarding claim 9
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of the claim are not invoked, as claim 9 depends on claim 5 which was not invoked.
However, YOUNG teaches identifying that the detected sound is sound generated by the unregistered person or the human object, as outlined above.
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU are not relied on to identify an importance of the detected sound based on at least one of a magnitude of the detected sound or a duration of the detected sound
However, PERRY in an analogous art teaches to:
identify an importance of the detected sound based on at least one of a magnitude of the detected sound or a duration of the detected sound ([0028]: “A key sound 122 can be a sound that meets a preset criteria. The criteria can be based on identifying sounds that indicate a likely emergency. Example criteria for a key sound 122 can include that the sound volume is above a preset volume, e.g., 80 or 90 decibels” [0086]: “key sound engine 310 determines whether the detected sound 302 meets criteria for a key sound […] key sound engine 310 can also compare the volume of the detected sound 302 to a preset volume level. Based on determining that the detected sound 302 matches pre-programmed words, phrases, or non word sounds, and/or is above a preset volume level, the key sound engine 310 can determine that the detected sound 302 meets criteria for a key sound”).
PERRY is analogous art as it is reasonably pertinent because it addresses the same sound-based machine monitoring problem of the claimed invention. PERRY also teaches that the key sound engine may be implemented as software on a general processor ([0172]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of PERRY to the teachings of the YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU combination such that PERRY’s subroutine configured to determine if a sound is a key sound and therefore is important would have been implemented by the processor of YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU in view of NAGASAKA (US20230118803A1).
Regarding claim 7
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of the claim are not invoked, as claim 7 depends on claim 6 which was not invoked.
However, YOUNG teaches to categorize an object of interest such that a high urgency or low urgency is determined ([0059-0061]).
MAGGIORE teaches that an appliance may induce an alarm sound ([0037]); a detected sound of an appliance being matched to audio including irregular
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU are not relied on to determine that a sound has a first importance, that a sound has a second importance, or that a sound has a third importance.
PNG
media_image2.png
242
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NAGASAKA, FIG. 2
However, NAGASAKA in analogous art teaches determining an importance level of a detected sound, wherein a first importance level has the highest degree of importance and the degree of importance gradually decreases in the order of importance levels (Fig. 2, [0062]).
NAGASAKA is analogous art as it is reasonably pertinent because it addresses the same sound-based machine monitoring problem of the claimed invention. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of NAGASAKA to the teachings of YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU such that generating NAGASAKA’s detected sound importance table could have been implemented as subroutine in the system taught by YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17
YOUNG-MAGGIORE-YU teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 17 are rejected as per claim 7.
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 18
Prior art will not be applied to claims 8, 10, and 18 due to the confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims, as outlined above under the §112(b) rejections.
Examiner’s note: Claim 8 is not invoked due to its dependency on claim 7 which was not invoked.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
STOIA (US20180029236A1) teaches comparing an average frequency domain and standard deviation to compare a detected sound profile to an average sound profile.
KAWAGUCHI (US20210302197A1) teaches implementation details of detecting an abnormality on the basis of sound.
SHIMADA (US20180286432A1) teaches map creating processing, map registration, and sound source localization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 In view of the indefiniteness and clarity issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) outlined above, the scope of claim 4 is not clearly defined. Accordingly, any prior art analysis and mapping set forth for claim 4 and any dependent claims should be considered provisional and the prior art analysis may be revisited as appropriate in view of any amendments or arguments submitted in response to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection.
Prosecution Insights