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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 21, and 31 are independent.
Claims 2-20 depend from Claim 1.
Claims 22-29 depend from Claim 21.
Claim 30 is cancelled.
This Application was published as U.S. 2026/0080896.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 Nov 2024, 26 Aug 2025, and 18 Feb 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “114” has been used to designate both Sound Demodulation Module and Admin Network in Fig 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are
required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 11-13 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.
With regards to claim 11, Claim refers to “the sound data.” Claim 11 does not refer to any sound data prior to this statement. Claim 1, in which claim 11 depends refers to “one or more sets of sound data” rather than a single sound data. Thus, it is not clear whether the claim is referring to a particular set of sound data, or another sound data.
Therefore, if the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 966 F.3d 1374, 1378-81, 2020 USPQ2d 10865 (Fed. Cir. 2020) For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that “the sound data” is any part of the one or more sets of sound data” from claim 1.
Dependent claims 12-13 are rejected because they depend on claim 11.
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, 3-7, 15-18, 21, 23-24, 26-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US2011/0257812 hereinafter Carpenter) in view of Katsumi (US2007/0127634 hereinafter Katsumi) and Kim et al.(US2023/0290342 hereinafter Kim)
With regards to claim 1, Carpenter teaches:
A system for digital fingerprinting, the system comprising: an antenna array that receives signals from at least one signal source located within range in an environment, [Carpenter Figures 1-2 teaches vehicle tracking comprising a cell phone antenna (204) where a cell phone has many antennas and can be considered an antenna array. (See Z. Ying, "Antennas in Cellular Phones for Mobile Communications," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 2286-2296, July 2012) Cell phone receives signals from at least one source located within the cell range of an environment]
wherein the received signals are associated with noise corresponding to sound waves detected near the at least one signal source; [Carpenter teaches monitoring of voices within the vehicle as well as “voices proximate and exterior to the vehicle” (Par [0005])]
a signal processor that locates the at least one signal source in a three-dimensional (3D) space of the environment using the received signals; [Carpenter teaches that “cell phone 218 is capable of accessing, via its data link, cell phone triangulation services in order to perform cell phone self triangulation 414” (Par [0031]) which locates the signal in a 3D space of the environment, and where a cell phone has a signal processor. (see for example iPhone 14 Pro technical specification, 2022 downloaded from (https://support.apple.com/en-us/111850) on 29 May 2026)]
at least one processor that executes instructions stored in memory to: identify that at least one of the sets of sound data includes voice data associated with at least one user; [Carpenter Fig 1 teaches “Voice and data from vehicle cell phone 218 are preferably recorded in onboard data storage 220” (Par [0022]) which identifies the voice data is a user’s voice]
With regards to claim 1, Carpenter fails to teach:
a sound demodulator that demodulates the noise associated with the received signals to extract one or more sets of sound data; and
With regards to claim 1, Katsumi teaches:
a sound demodulator that demodulates the noise associated with the received signals to extract one or more sets of sound data; and [Katsumi Fig 4 teaches phase shift keying (PSK) demodulator (118) that performs demodulation on the signal to “extract the code sequence.” (Par [0037])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter with the call recording using demodulation as taught by Katsumi. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter and Katsumi is because Katsumi teaches “smoothing process by the moving average method in order to remove high band signal components from the demodulated signal extracted by the PSK demodulator 118” (Par [0038]) which improves the capabilities of the recording device as taught by Carpenter]
With regards to claim 1, Carpenter in view of Katsumi fails to teach:
determine that the identified voice data satisfies one or more rules in a rule database; and
execute an action associated with the satisfied rules.
With regards to claim 1, Kim teaches:
determine that the identified voice data satisfies one or more rules in a rule database; and [Kim Fig 1 teaches intention determination module (120) determines intent (Par [0064]) and emotion determination module (130) determines user’s emotional state (Par [0066]) based on the intent, and “database 150 may store rules for determining whether to respond based on the user's intention and emotional state.” (Par [0069])]
execute an action associated with the satisfied rules. [Kim Fig 3 teaches “output module 170 may convert the response generated by the response generation module 160 into the form of voice and output the voice.” (Par [0096])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter and Katsumi with the dialogue system as taught by Kim. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter and Katsumi with Kim is because Kim teaches “identifying a user's utterance without a certain trigger, analyzing the user's intention and emotion, and providing a response to the user's intention and emotion, and a control method thereof.” (Par [0009]) which improves the capabilities of the vehicle tracking and audio recording system as taught by Carpenter and Katsumi to better respond to user’s inputs]
With regards to claim 3, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the at least one signal source includes one or more of a vibration detector, a passive tag, or a user device. [Carpenter Fig 1 teaches signal source includes a cell phone (218)]
With regards to claim 4, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 3
wherein the vibration detector actively transmits the signals to the antenna array without being pinged by the antenna array. [Carpenter Fig 1 teaches a cell phone (218) that is a vibration device that transmits to the antenna array without being pinged by the antenna array]
With regards to claim 5, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the antenna array operates in an active or a passive mode, wherein the antenna array operates in the passive mode by detecting radio waves that occur without prompting, and operates in the active mode by transmitting radio waves that are reflected or retransmitted by the at least one signal source. [Carpenter Fig 1 teaches a cell phone (218) which have many antennas that act in a passive and active manner (see Z. Ying, "Antennas in Cellular Phones for Mobile Communications," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 2286-2296, July 2012)]
With regards to claim 6, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the at least one processor identifies at least one device by combining the sets of sound data with other data extracted from the received signals, wherein the other data extracted from the received signals includes one or more of Media Access Control (MAC) addresses, device names, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, Service Set Identifiers (SSIDs), network names of previously connected SSIDs, SSID lengths of previously connected SSIDs, currently connected SSID, SSID length of currently connected SSID, supported link speeds, supported ciphers or cryptographic capabilities, high throughput capabilities (HT), Aggregated MAC Protocol Data Unit (AMPDU) data, vendor specific capabilities, timestamps for when a probe request was received, signal strengths, signal levels, noise ratios, or vendor information. [Carpenter Fig 1 teaches a cell phone (218) which combines metadata with other signals, where it is know that cell phones data can include metadata (see Stacey Lane Rowland, Understanding Our Digital Fingerprints: Metadata, Competency, and the Future Practice of Law, 20 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 276 (2024))]
With regards to claim 7, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 6
wherein the at least one processor executes an Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) system to identify the sets of sound data extracted from the received signals. [Kim teaches identifying information by a classifier where the classifier “may include classification using a support vector machine (SVM) model, classification using a convolutional neural network (CNN) or recurrent neural network (RNN) model, classification using a Bert model, and the like.” (Par [0141]) which are AI or ML systems]
With regards to claim 15, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the signal processor locates the at least one signal source by triangulation or trilateration. [Carpenter teaches that “cell phone 218 is capable of accessing, via its data link, cell phone triangulation services in order to perform cell phone self triangulation 414” (Par [0031]) which locates the signal.]
With regards to claim 16, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the one or more rules in the rule database are ordered according to an urgency level and processed in order of the urgency level. [Kim Fig 11 teaches “respond to the user's utterance may be strictly determined according to rules stored in a database” [0088] such as when the user’s emotion state is “high” (Par[0086]) where a database is ordered according to emotion state or urgency]
With regards to claim 17, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein at least one of the rules specifies multiple criteria that must be satisfied in order to execute the associated action. [Kim teaches response is based on user’s intention and emotional state (Par [0086-87]) as well as if the vehicle condition is “not dangerous to output a response to the user's utterance” (Par [0091])]
With regards to claim 18, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein at least one of the rules specifies that at least one particular word is found in the voice data. [Kim teaches “identifying a user's subsequent utterance and figure out the user's intention when a trigger word” (Par [0006]) is found in the voice data]
With regards to claim 21, Carpenter teaches:
A method for digital fingerprinting, the method comprising: receiving signals, via an antenna array, from at least one signal source located within range in an environment, [Carpenter Figures 1-2 teaches vehicle tracking comprising a cell phone antenna (204) where a cell phone has many antennas and can be considered an antenna array. (See Z. Ying, "Antennas in Cellular Phones for Mobile Communications," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 2286-2296, July 2012) Cell phone receives signals from at least one source located within the cell range of an environment]
wherein the received signals are associated with noise corresponding to sound waves detected near the at least one signal source; [Carpenter teaches monitoring of voices within the vehicle as well as “voices proximate and exterior to the vehicle” (Par [0005])]
locating, via a signal processor, the at least one signal source in a three-dimensional (3D) space of the environment using the received signals; [Carpenter teaches that “cell phone 218 is capable of accessing, via its data link, cell phone triangulation services in order to perform cell phone self triangulation 414” (Par [0031]) which locates the signal in a 3D space of the environment, and where a cell phone has a signal processor. (see for example iPhone 14 Pro technical specification)]
identifying that at least one of the sets of sound data includes voice data associated with at least one user; [Carpenter Fig 1 teaches “Voice and data from vehicle cell phone 218 are preferably recorded in onboard data storage 220” (Par [0022]) which identifies the voice data is a user’s voice]
With regards to claim 21, Carpenter fails to teach:
demodulating the noise associated with the received signals to extract one or more sets of sound data;
With regards to claim 21, Katsumi teaches:
demodulating the noise associated with the received signals to extract one or more sets of sound data; [Katsumi Fig 4 teaches phase shift keying (PSK) demodulator (118) that performs demodulation on the signal to “extract the code sequence.” (Par [0037])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter with the call recording using demodulation as taught by Katsumi. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter and Katsumi is because Katsumi teaches “smoothing process by the moving average method in order to remove high band signal components from the demodulated signal extracted by the PSK demodulator 118” (Par [0038]) which improves the capabilities of the recording device as taught by Carpenter]
With regards to claim 21, Carpenter in view of Katsumi fails to teach:
determining that the identified voice data satisfies one or more rules in a rule database; and
executing an action associated with the satisfied rules.
With regards to claim 21, Kim teaches:
determining that the identified voice data satisfies one or more rules in a rule database; and [Kim Fig 1 teaches intention determination module (120) determines intent (Par [0064]) and emotion determination module (130) determines user’s emotional state (Par [0066]) based on the intent, and “database 150 may store rules for determining whether to respond based on the user's intention and emotional state.” (Par [0069])]
executing an action associated with the satisfied rules. [Kim Fig 3 teaches “output module 170 may convert the response generated by the response generation module 160 into the form of voice and output the voice.” (Par [0096])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter and Katsumi with the dialogue system as taught by Kim. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter and Katsumi with Kim is because Kim teaches “identifying a user's utterance without a certain trigger, analyzing the user's intention and emotion, and providing a response to the user's intention and emotion, and a control method thereof.” (Par [0009]) which improves the capabilities of the vehicle tracking and audio recording system as taught by Carpenter and Katsumi to better respond to user’s inputs]
Claim 23 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 24 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 26 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 15 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 27 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 28 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 17 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 29 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 18 and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 31, Carpenter teaches:
receiving signals from at least one signal source located within range in an environment, [Carpenter Figures 1-2 teaches vehicle tracking comprising a cell phone antenna (204) where a cell phone has many antennas and can be considered an antenna array. (See Z. Ying, "Antennas in Cellular Phones for Mobile Communications," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 2286-2296, July 2012) Cell phone receives signals from at least one source located within the cell range of an environment]
wherein the received signals are associated with noise corresponding to sound waves detected near the at least one signal source; [Carpenter teaches monitoring of voices within the vehicle as well as “voices proximate and exterior to the vehicle” (Par [0005])]
locating the at least one signal source in a three-dimensional (3D) space of the environment using the received signals; [Carpenter teaches that “cell phone 218 is capable of accessing, via its data link, cell phone triangulation services in order to perform cell phone self triangulation 414” (Par [0031]) which locates the signal in a 3D space of the environment, and where a cell phone has a signal processor. (see for example iPhone 14 Pro technical specification)]
identifying that at least one of the sets of sound data includes voice data associated with at least one user; [Carpenter Fig 1 teaches “Voice and data from vehicle cell phone 218 are preferably recorded in onboard data storage 220” (Par [0022]) which identifies the voice data is a user’s voice]
With regards to claim 31, Carpenter fails to teach:
demodulating the noise associated with the received signals to extract one or more sets of sound data;
With regards to claim 31, Katsumi teaches:
demodulating the noise associated with the received signals to extract one or more sets of sound data; [Katsumi Fig 4 teaches phase shift keying (PSK) demodulator (118) that performs demodulation on the signal to “extract the code sequence.” (Par [0037])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter with the call recording using demodulation as taught by Katsumi. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter and Katsumi is because Katsumi teaches “smoothing process by the moving average method in order to remove high band signal components from the demodulated signal extracted by the PSK demodulator 118” (Par [0038]) which improves the capabilities of the recording device as taught by Carpenter]
With regards to claim 31, Carpenter in view of Katsumi fails to teach:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program executable by a processer to perform a method for digital fingerprinting, the method comprising:
determining that the identified voice data satisfies one or more rules in a rule database; and
executing an action associated with the satisfied rules.
With regards to claim 31, Kim teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program executable by a processer to perform a method for digital fingerprinting, the method comprising: [Kim teaches “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including such software or commands stored thereon and executable on the apparatus or the computer.” (Par [0165])]
determining that the identified voice data satisfies one or more rules in a rule database; and [Kim Fig 1 teaches intention determination module (120) determines intent (Par [0064]) and emotion determination module (130) determines user’s emotional state (Par [0066]) based on the intent, and “database 150 may store rules for determining whether to respond based on the user's intention and emotional state.” (Par [0069])]
executing an action associated with the satisfied rules. [Kim Fig 3 teaches “output module 170 may convert the response generated by the response generation module 160 into the form of voice and output the voice.” (Par [0096])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter and Katsumi with the dialogue system as taught by Kim. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter and Katsumi with Kim is because Kim teaches “identifying a user's utterance without a certain trigger, analyzing the user's intention and emotion, and providing a response to the user's intention and emotion, and a control method thereof.” (Par [0009]) which improves the capabilities of the vehicle tracking and audio recording system as taught by Carpenter and Katsumi to better respond to user’s inputs]
Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US2011/0257812) in view of Katsumi (US2007/0127634) and Kim et al.(US2023/0290342) in further view of Volkerink et al. (US2022/0256310 hereinafter Volkerink)
With regards to claim 2, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 2, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim fails to teach:
wherein the antenna array initially sends a ping signal to the at least one signal source.
With regards to claim 2, Volkerink teaches:
wherein the antenna array initially sends a ping signal to the at least one signal source. [Volkerink teaches client application (722) is installed on a mobile device which “may cause the mobile device to establish a connection with, and receive pings (e.g., alerts to nearby assets that an environmental profile threshold has been exceeded)” (Par [0080]) from an agent and receiving a ping also teaches sending a ping.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with the cell tower location system as taught by Volkerink. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with Volkerink is because Volkerink teaches “mobile device running the client application 722 may share location data with the tape node, allowing the tape node to pinpoint its location” (Par [0080]) which improves the location tracking capabilities of the vehicle tracking and audio recording system as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim]
Claim 22 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US2011/0257812) in view of Katsumi (US2007/0127634) and Kim et al.(US2023/0290342) in further view of Keith (US2024/0022565 hereinafter Keith)
With regards to claim 8, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 8, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim fails to teach:
wherein the at least one processor executes further instructions to calculate a confidence metric used to identify at least one device associated with the received signals.
With regards to claim 8, Keith teaches:
wherein the at least one processor executes further instructions to calculate a confidence metric used to identify at least one device associated with the received signals. [Keith Fig 9 teaches calculating trust score (step 902) which is a confidence metric used to identify a device (step 904) based on user information associated with the received signals.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with the security platform and trust score as taught by Keith. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with Keith is because Keith teaches a security platform that uses a variety of biometric factors to make it “extremely difficult to spoof or hack by malicious actors or malware software” (Par [0004]) which improves the security of the device as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim]
With regards to claim 9, Carpenter in view of Katsumi, Kim, and Keith teaches:
All the limitations of claim 8
wherein the confidence metric includes a plurality of sub-confidence metrics. [Keith Fig 9 teaches “trust score is also able to be based on other information such as location, time, device information and other personal information” (Par [0121]) which are sub-confidence metrics that factor into the trust score]
With regards to claim 10, Carpenter in view of Katsumi, Kim, and Keith teaches:
All the limitations of claim 9
wherein the plurality of sub-confidence metrics include one or more of device vendor similarity metrics, device location similarity metrics, or a collection of past networks. [Keith Fig 9 teaches device location similarity metrics such that “if the device is determined to be in Mexico, and the user has never visited Mexico previously, the trust score is able to be decreased” (Par [0121])]
With regards to claim 11, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 11, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim fails to teach:
wherein the at least one processor executes further instructions to generate at least one voiceprint from the sound data.
With regards to claim 11, Keith teaches:
wherein the at least one processor executes further instructions to generate at least one voiceprint from the sound data. [Keith Fig 19 teaches voice recognition by “asking a user to repeat a specific, random phrase (e.g., a random set of word combinations such as “kangaroo, hopscotch, automobile”)” (Par [0196]) to generate a voiceprint from sound data from the user.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with the security platform and trust score as taught by Keith. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with Keith is because Keith teaches a security platform that uses a variety of biometric factors to make it “extremely difficult to spoof or hack by malicious actors or malware software” (Par [0004]) which improves the security of the device as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim]
With regards to claim 12, Carpenter in view of Katsumi, Kim, and Keith teaches:
All the limitations of claim 11
wherein at least one processor executes further instructions to use the at least one voiceprint to perform behind-the-presence detection and identification. [Keith Fig 19 teaches “implementing user identification proofing using a combination of user responses to system Turing tests using biometric method” (Par [0194]) by using “vocal fingerprint and the pattern of how a user talks are able to be analyzed” (Par [0196]) to perform behind-the-presence detection and identification]
With regards to claim 13, Carpenter in view of Katsumi, Kim, and Keith teaches:
All the limitations of claim 12
wherein the behind-the-presence detection identifies at least one device associated with the at least one user. [Keith teaches “a user is verified using the analysis and challenge/Turing test, the user is able to access the device and/or specific apps/sites using the device” (Par [0199]) which identifies the device with the user]
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US2011/0257812) in view of Katsumi (US2007/0127634) and Kim et al.(US2023/0290342) in further view of Thoresen et al. (US2019/0182627 hereinafter Thoresen)
With regards to claim 14, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 14, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim fails to teach:
wherein the signal processor locates the at least one signal source using at least one of an Angle of Arrival (AoA) measurement, a Kalman filter, a Joint Probabilistic Data Association (JPDA) operation, or a Multiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) algorithm.
With regards to claim 14, Thoresen teaches:
wherein the signal processor locates the at least one signal source using at least one of an Angle of Arrival (AoA) measurement, a Kalman filter, a Joint Probabilistic Data Association (JPDA) operation, or a Multiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) algorithm.
[Thoresen Fig 21 teaches performing angle of arrival (AoA) measurement (2110) and Kalman Filter (2115), JPDA (Par [0230-57]), and MUSIC algorithm (Par [0205-09]) to locate the target device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with the system of tracking devices as taught by Thoresen. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with Thoresen is because Thoresen teaches “High accuracy low observable tracking systems use one or more sensors in a wireless device to collect data about the environment of the wireless device and processes the collected data to estimate the state of a system and its environment at a given point in time.” (Par [0187]) which improves the accuracy of the tracking system as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim]
Claim 25 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of system Claim 14 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US2011/0257812) in view of Katsumi (US2007/0127634) and Kim et al.(US2023/0290342) in further view of Blake et al. (US2024/0220543 hereinafter Blake)
With regards to claim 19, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 19, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim fails to teach:
wherein at least one of the rules specifies that the at least one user associated with the voice data is found in a particular list of users.
With regards to claim 19, Blake teaches:
wherein at least one of the rules specifies that the at least one user associated with the voice data is found in a particular list of users. [Blake teaches “Each of the members of the household may have a voice pattern profile that may be stored and recognized by the home assistant device so that user requests may be performed according to each respective user's preferences.” (Par [0039])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with voice pattern profile as taught by Blake. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim, with Blake is because Blake teaches “viewer's identity and comments and search contributions may be cached in storage by the media guidance application which will update the bases for the search” (Par [0004])] which improves the accuracy of the voice identification in the tracking system as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim]
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US2011/0257812) in view of Katsumi (US2007/0127634) and Kim et al.(US2023/0290342) in further view of Alameh et al. (US11455411 hereinafter Alameh)
With regards to claim 20, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 20, Carpenter in view of Katsumi and Kim fails to teach:
wherein at least one of the rules specifies that at least a particular number of devices are detected in a particular area.
With regards to claim 20, Alameh teaches:
wherein at least one of the rules specifies that at least a particular number of devices are detected in a particular area. [Alameh teaches “detection can also be based on a number of device signatures (e.g., Wi-Fi signatures, Bluetooth signatures) that are detected by the computing device 102.” (Col 15 lines 10-12)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of vehicle tracking and audio recording using a cell phone as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim with detection of devices as taught by Alameh. The motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim, with Alameh is because Alameh teaches “device signatures are detected then the computing device is in a public setting, otherwise the computing device 102 is in a private setting” (Col 15 lines 13-15) which improves the accuracy of the voice identification in the tracking system as taught by Carpenter, Katsumi, and Kim to determine if the setting is public or private]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph J Yamamoto whose telephone number is (571)272-4020. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
JOSEPH J. YAMAMOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights