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 .
Specification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to a program that is not excluded from being stored in a transitory medium. Specifying in the claim that the program is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium would overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2015/0319540 A1), hereinafter “Rubinstein,” in view of Dorn et al. (Dorn, et al. "Efficient Full-Field Vibration Measurements and Operational Modal Analysis Using Neuromorphic Event-Based Imaging." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 14 Dec. 2018.), hereinafter “Dorn.”
As to claim 1, Rubinstein discloses a computer system for detecting vibrations generated by sound waves in a space, comprising:
a memory for storing a program code (¶0010 and ¶0118, Fig. 1a/b); and
a processor for performing an operation in accordance with the program code (¶0010 and ¶0118, Fig. 1a/b),
wherein the operation includes analyzing vibrations of an object in the space in reference to an input signal (¶0041, ¶0062, Figs. 1a/b, 4 and 6A. “An input sound (to be recovered) consists of fluctuations in air pressure at the surface of some object (a cup in FIG. 6A-1). These fluctuations cause the object to move, resulting in a pattern of displacement over time that can be recorded with a camera. The visual microphone is modelled as a system that operates on sound. FIG. 6A-1 shows the object's response to sound—taking as input changes in air pressure, measured in Pascals, and producing physical displacement of the object over time, measured in millimeters. The response of the object to the sound depends on various factors such as the sound level at the object and the object's material and shape. A camera then records the object, transforming the physical displacements into pixel motions in a video.”), and
reconstructing sound data from a result of the analysis of the vibration (¶0060 and ¶0063, Figs. 4 and 6A. “These small vibrations can be extracted from high speed video, and the sound that produced them can be reconstructed or recovered using the object as a visual microphone from a distance.” “The spatiotemporal processing pipeline transforms the motions in the video back into sound.”).
Rubinstein does not expressly disclose an event signal generated by an event-based vision sensor.
Dorn discloses an event signal generated by an event-based vision sensor (Abstract. “To alleviate such a challenge, this work explores the use of event-based neuromorphic imagers, specifically silicon retinas, an efficient alternative to traditional frame-based video cameras, to perform full-field vibration measurements and operational modal analysis.”).
Rubinstein and Dorn are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to measuring object vibrations with imaging.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an event-based neuromorphic imager, as taught by Dorn. The motivation would have been alleviate the considerable resources consumed by regular digital video cameras due to the large amount of redundant data (Dorn, Abstract).
As to claim 2, Rubinstein in view of Dorn reproducing sound data by a sound source in the space, and comparing the reproduced sound data and the reconstructed sound data (Rubinstein, ¶0041 and ¶0081. “The quality of recovered sounds can be evaluated using intelligibility and signal-to-noise (SNR) metrics, and input and recovered audio samples can be provided for direct comparison.” “LLR… is a metric that captures how closely the spectral shape of a recovered signal matches that of the original clean signal. The results can also be evaluated visually by looking at the spectrograms of the input speech and recovered signals, as described hereinafter in conjunction with FIG. 11.”).
As to claim 3, Rubinstein in view of Dorn discloses estimating acoustic frequency response characteristics of the object in reference to a result of the comparison (Rubinstein, ¶0062 and ¶0087. “FIG. 6A-1 shows the object's response to sound—taking as input changes in air pressure, measured in Pascals, and producing physical displacement of the object over time, measured in millimeters.” “In particular, all of the results described herein other than those of FIG. 10 assume no prior knowledge of the recorded object's frequency response.”).
Claims 10 and 11 are directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same motivation as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rong et al. (US 11,988,772 B2) directed towards recovering acoustic signals from passive sources using RF radar.
Ji et al. (Ji, Zihao, et al. "Seeing through Events: Real-Time Moving Object Sonification for Visually Impaired People Using Event-Based Camera." Sensors, 20 May 2021.) directed towards real-time MIDI sonification of objects using an event-based camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights