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 .
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 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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to application filed on September 17, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-12 recites “operable to”. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “able to” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Examiner suggest to amend “operable to” as “configured to”. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Examiner interprets Claims 14, 16 and 18 limitation “at least one of a step of enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold …; and a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time” as “at least one of a step of enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold …; and at least one of a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time”. The plain English meaning of the phrase “at least one of X and Y;” is “at least one of X and at least one of Y”.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1 — Judicial exception:
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and comparing information and taking an action based on the result. Specifically, the claim recites monitoring ambient decibel levels over repeated time instances, determining and maintaining a baseline decibel level, comparing a current ambient level to the baseline with a threshold and delay, and triggering an alarm when the comparison criterion is satisfied. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., observing/recording sound levels, computing a baseline, comparing current reading to the baseline, and deciding to alarm), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Integration into a practical application:
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. The claim recites generic alarm-system functionality (an “alarm system operable to monitor … determine … maintain a record … and trigger an alarm”) but fails to specifically recite how the monitoring, baseline determination, maintenance, comparison, or trigger are performed in a manner that improves the functioning of the alarm system itself or other technology. The claim does not recite any unconventional sensor hardware, specialized signal-processing techniques, particular data structures, novel methods of eliminating false positives, or other improvements to the technological functioning of the monitoring device. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under USPTO guidance.
Step 2B — Additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination:
The additional elements (an alarm system, monitoring from at least one reference location within a surrounding area, maintaining a record, and triggering an alarm) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors, timers, and alarm outputs). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
For the reasons above, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 2, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 3, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic processors, timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 4, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 5, the additional elements (determining average decibel levels, determining the baseline decibel level) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 5 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 6, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 7, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic processors, timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 8, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 9, the additional elements (determining average decibel levels, determining the baseline decibel level, the length of the prescribed period of time) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors and timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 10, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 10 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 11, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic processors, timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 12, the additional elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 12 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 13,
Step 1 — Judicial exception:
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and comparing information and taking an action based on the result. Specifically, the claim recites monitoring ambient decibel levels over repeated time instances, determining and maintaining a baseline decibel level, comparing a current ambient level to the baseline with a threshold and delay, and triggering an alarm when the comparison criterion is satisfied. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., observing/recording sound levels, computing a baseline, comparing current reading to the baseline, and deciding to alarm), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Integration into a practical application:
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. The claim recites generic alarm-method functionality (a “method of protecting against theft, comprising the steps of monitoring … determining … maintaining a record … and triggering an alarm”) but fails to specifically recite how the monitoring, baseline determination, maintenance, comparison, or trigger are performed in a manner that improves the functioning of the alarm system itself or other technology. The claim does not recite any unconventional sensor hardware, specialized signal-processing techniques, particular data structures, novel methods of eliminating false positives, or other improvements to the technological functioning of the monitoring device. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under USPTO guidance.
Step 2B — Additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination:
The additional elements (monitoring from at least one reference location within a surrounding area, maintaining a record, and triggering an alarm) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors, timers, and alarm outputs). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
For the reasons above, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 13 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 14, the additional steps/elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted, enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors and timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 14 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 15, the additional elements (determining average decibel levels, determining the baseline decibel levels) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic processors). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 15 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 16, the additional steps/elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted, enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors and timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 16 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 17, the additional steps/elements (determining average decibel levels, determining the baseline decibel level, the length of the prescribed period of time) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors and timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 17 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the dependent claim 18, the additional steps/elements (enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted, enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted) are described at a high level and are routine, conventional components and functions of alarm systems and monitoring devices (e.g., generic microphones/sound sensors, processors and timers). The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 18 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gancarcik et al. (Gancarcik: US 2012/0086570) in view of Carmichel (US 2006/0012478 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gancarcik teaches an alarm system operable to: monitor an ambient decibel level during a plurality of instances of a prescribed first period of time from at least one reference location within a surrounding area; determine a baseline decibel level as a function of the ambient decibel level (Par 22, monitor ambient noise levels within a room. An average ambient noise level can be measured over a predetermined period and Par 26-27);
maintain a record of the baseline decibel level (Par 27-29, ambient noise level updated at selected interval); and
trigger an instance of a security breach alarm (Fig. 5, step 540 and Par 53-54, request for assistance and Par 20) in response to an occurrence of the ambient decibel level during a current one of the instances of the prescribed first period of time exceeding the baseline decibel level by at least a prescribed decibel level threshold (Fig. 5,step 520 and Par 22 and Par 53, Sounds detected by the microphone that have an amplitude that is a selected amount greater than the amplitude of the ambient noise can be processed 520, and Par [0033] The distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) the amplitude of the average high and low amplitude levels of the ambient noise waveform 200 in Section B. ).
Gancarcik does not explicitly disclose exceeding the threshold is for at least a prescribed trigger delay time.
However, Carmichel teaches a sound detection and alerting system (abstract) and further teaches exceeding the threshold is for at least a prescribed trigger delay time to trigger the alarm/notification (Fig. 6, steps 52 and 56 and Par 28; activates a delay timer to ensure that the acoustic noise of interest lasts longer than a pre-determined period of time. If the acoustical noise does not persist for a period greater than the delay time, the timer resets itself. Any noise must persist for longer than the delay time for the device to trigger the alerting device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the delay time as taught by Carmichel in order to minimize false triggering (Carmichel: Par 8-9).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the alarm system of claim 1, being further operable to enable the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located.).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the alarm system of claim 1, wherein being operable to determine the baseline decibel level includes being operable to: determine a plurality of average decibel levels for each of a respective one of the plurality of instances of the prescribed first period of time; and determine the baseline decibel level as a function of at least two of the average decibel levels (Gancarcik: Par 27, the ambient noise level may be continuously monitored and updated every 6 seconds. This enables the ambient noise level to be adjusted to compensate for significant changes in ambient noise. Ambient noise levels may significantly change when a room suddenly becomes occupied by one or more persons or when another type of change occurs such as during a break time or a lunch time period. Ambient noise levels may also change with respect to machinery or the use of electronic equipment. ).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the alarm system of claim 5, being further operable to enable the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik; Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located.).
Regarding Claim 9, Gancarcik teaches the alarm system of claim 1, wherein: being operable to determine the baseline decibel level includes
being operable to determine a plurality of first average decibel levels for each of a respective one of the plurality of instances of the prescribed first period of time (Gancarcik: Par 27, the ambient noise level can be updated at selected intervals. For instance, the ambient noise level may be continuously monitored and updated every 6 seconds) and being operable to determine a plurality of second average decibel levels for each of a respective one of the plurality of instances of a second period of time longer than the first period of time (Gancarcik: Par [0028] The actual rate of update of the ambient noise level may be selected based on system requirements and acoustic conditions in the room in which the system will be located. For instance, in a quiet office the update rate for the ambient noise level may be relatively slow, such as every 20 seconds);
wherein the prescribed first period of time is less than 24 hours (Gancarcik: Par 27, 6 seconds);
wherein the prescribed second period of time is a length of time greater than two of the prescribed first period of time (Gancarcik: par 28, 20 seconds); and
wherein being operable to determine the baseline decibel level as a function of the ambient decibel level includes being operable to determine the baseline decibel level as a function of at least two of the second average decibel level .(Gancarcik: Par [0028] in a quiet office the update rate for the ambient noise level may be relatively slow, such as every 20 seconds.)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the alarm system of claim 9, being further operable to enable the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located.).
Regarding Claim 13, Gancarcik teaches a method of protecting against theft, comprising the steps of:
monitoring an ambient decibel level during a plurality of instances of a prescribed first period of time from at least one reference location within a surrounding area; determining a baseline decibel level as a function of the ambient decibel level (Par 22, monitor ambient noise levels within a room. An average ambient noise level can be measured over a predetermined period and Par 26-27);
maintaining a record of the baseline decibel level (Par 27-29, ambient noise level updated at selected interval); and
triggering an instance of a security breach alarm (Fig. 5, step 540 and Par 53-54, request for assistance and Par 20) in response to an occurrence of the ambient decibel level during a current one of the instances of the prescribed first period of time exceeding the baseline decibel level by at least a prescribed decibel level threshold (Fig. 5,step 520 and Par 22 and Par 53, Sounds detected by the microphone that have an amplitude that is a selected amount greater than the amplitude of the ambient noise can be processed 520, and Par [0033] The distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) the amplitude of the average high and low amplitude levels of the ambient noise waveform 200 in Section B. ).
Gancarcik does not explicitly disclose exceeding the threshold is for at least a prescribed trigger delay time.
However, Carmichel teaches a sound detection and alerting system (abstract) and further teaches exceeding the threshold is for at least a prescribed trigger delay time to trigger the alarm/notification (Fig. 6, steps 52 and 56 and Par 28; activates a delay timer to ensure that the acoustic noise of interest lasts longer than a pre-determined period of time. If the acoustical noise does not persist for a period greater than the delay time, the timer resets itself. Any noise must persist for longer than the delay time for the device to trigger the alerting device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the delay time as taught by Carmichel in order to minimize false triggering (Carmichel: Par 8-9).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the method of claim 13, wherein determining the baseline decibel level includes: determining a plurality of average decibel levels for each of a respective one of the plurality of instances of the prescribed first period of time; and determining the baseline decibel level as a function of at least two of the average decibel levels (Gancarcik: Par 27, the ambient noise level may be continuously monitored and updated every 6 seconds. This enables the ambient noise level to be adjusted to compensate for significant changes in ambient noise. Ambient noise levels may significantly change when a room suddenly becomes occupied by one or more persons or when another type of change occurs such as during a break time or a lunch time period. Ambient noise levels may also change with respect to machinery or the use of electronic equipment).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the method of claim 13, wherein:
determining the baseline decibel level includes determining a plurality of first average decibel levels for each of a respective one of the plurality of instances of the prescribed first period of time (Gancarcik: Par 27, the ambient noise level can be updated at selected intervals. For instance, the ambient noise level may be continuously monitored and updated every 6 seconds) and
determining a plurality of second average decibel levels for each of a respective one of the plurality of instances of a second period of time longer than the first period of time (Gancarcik: Par [0028] The actual rate of update of the ambient noise level may be selected based on system requirements and acoustic conditions in the room in which the system will be located. For instance, in a quiet office the update rate for the ambient noise level may be relatively slow, such as every 20 seconds);
the prescribed first period of time is less than 24 hours Gancarcik: Par 27, 6 seconds);
wherein the prescribed second period of time is a length of time greater than two of the prescribed first period of time (Gancarcik: par 28, 20 seconds); and
determining the baseline decibel level as a function of the ambient decibel level includes determining the baseline decibel level as a function of the plurality of second average decibel levels (Gancarcik: Par [0028] in a quiet office the update rate for the ambient noise level may be relatively slow, such as every 20 seconds.).
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gancarcik in view of Carmichel further in view of Lu (US 5877684).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the alarm system of claim 1,but does not explicitly disclose being further operable to enable the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times.
However, Lu teaches an alarm device having a timer for setting a delay time so that errors arising from immediate action on start-up can be avoided (abstract and Fig. 2, 26) and enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times (Col. 3 lines 19-27; The timer 24 has a time delay selector for controlling the time delay before an alarm generator circuit 28 starts to operate. As an illustration, the time delay selector in this example has three settings including a ten second, a minute and a ten minute interval. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively adjust the trigger delay time in order to enable the user to select the necessary delay (Lu: Col. 4 lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Gancarcik, Carmichel and Lu teaches the alarm system of claim 3, being further operable to enable the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the alarm system of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose being further operable to enable the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times.
However, Lu teaches an alarm device having a timer for setting a delay time so that errors arising from immediate action on start-up can be avoided (abstract and Fig. 2, 26) and enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times (Col. 3 lines 19-27; The timer 24 has a time delay selector for controlling the time delay before an alarm generator circuit 28 starts to operate. As an illustration, the time delay selector in this example has three settings including a ten second, a minute and a ten minute interval. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively adjust the trigger delay time in order to enable the user to select the necessary delay (Lu: Col. 4 lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Gancarcik, Carmichel and Lu teaches the alarm system of claim 7, being further operable to enable the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located.).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the alarm system of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose being further operable to enable the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times.
However, Lu teaches an alarm device having a timer for setting a delay time so that errors arising from immediate action on start-up can be avoided (abstract and Fig. 2, 26) and enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times (Col. 3 lines 19-27; The timer 24 has a time delay selector for controlling the time delay before an alarm generator circuit 28 starts to operate. As an illustration, the time delay selector in this example has three settings including a ten second, a minute and a ten minute interval. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively adjust the trigger delay time in order to enable the user to select the necessary delay (Lu: Col. 4 lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Gancarcik, Carmichel and Lu teaches the alarm system of claim 11, being further operable to enable the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located.).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising at least one of: a step of enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located).
The combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel does not explicitly disclose a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined prescribed trigger delay times.
However, Lu teaches an alarm device having a timer for setting a delay time so that errors arising from immediate action on start-up can be avoided (abstract and Fig. 2, 26) and a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined prescribed trigger delay times (Col. 3 lines 19-27; The timer 24 has a time delay selector for controlling the time delay before an alarm generator circuit 28 starts to operate. As an illustration, the time delay selector in this example has three settings including a ten second, a minute and a ten minute interval. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively adjust the trigger delay time in order to enable the user to select the necessary delay (Lu: Col. 4 lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising at least one of: a step of enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located).
The combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel does not explicitly disclose a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times.
However, Lu teaches an alarm device having a timer for setting a delay time so that errors arising from immediate action on start-up can be avoided (abstract and Fig. 2, 26) and a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times (Col. 3 lines 19-27; The timer 24 has a time delay selector for controlling the time delay before an alarm generator circuit 28 starts to operate. As an illustration, the time delay selector in this example has three settings including a ten second, a minute and a ten minute interval. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively adjust the trigger delay time in order to enable the user to select the necessary delay (Lu: Col. 4 lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising at least one of: a step of enabling the prescribed decibel level threshold amount to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined decibel level threshold amounts (Gancarcik: Par 32, selected amount great than the average value of the ambient noise level and Par 33, distressed sound threshold 202 can be set at a selected level, such as four times (6 dB) …The actual distressed sound threshold level can be selected based on system criteria and the acoustics of the location in which the system is located).
The combination of Gancarcik and Carmichel does not explicitly disclose a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times.
However, Lu teaches an alarm device having a timer for setting a delay time so that errors arising from immediate action on start-up can be avoided (abstract and Fig. 2, 26) and a step of enabling the prescribed trigger delay time to be selectively adjusted between a plurality of pre-defined trigger delay times (Col. 3 lines 19-27; The timer 24 has a time delay selector for controlling the time delay before an alarm generator circuit 28 starts to operate. As an illustration, the time delay selector in this example has three settings including a ten second, a minute and a ten minute interval. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively adjust the trigger delay time in order to enable the user to select the necessary delay (Lu: Col. 4 lines 17-19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688