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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. The claim depends from claim 3 which depends from claim 2 which depends from claim 1. Claim 4 recites “an object”. It is unclear if this is the same “an object” recited in claim 1 or intended to be a different object.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and incorporates it in its entirety. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 depends from claim 4 and incorporates it in its entirety. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (2022/0408206) in view of Yokev (5596330).
With respect to claim 1, Kim teaches generating continuous tones from multiple sound sources located a different positions in an area ([0063]; [0064], lines 4-5); synchronously capturing sound by multiple acoustic sensors located at different positions in the area ([0068]); determining differences in selected tones in sensor pairs ([0069]-[0071]); and determining a locality of an object in the area from the determined differences ([0099]). However, it does not teach determining phase differences of selected tones in sensor pairs; and determining a locality of an object in the area from the determined phase differences.
Yokev teaches determining phase differences of selected tones in sensor pairs (Col 4, lines 51-52); and determining a locality of an object in the area from the determined phase differences (col 4, lines 50-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Kim with the phase difference calculations of Yokev since such a modification would have improved positioning accuracy.
With respect to claim 2, Kim teaches the area is an indoor area ([0004]-[0005]).
With respect to claim 3, Kim teaches the indoor area is a confined space (Fig 13).
With respect to claim 4, Kim teaches wherein an object enters or moves within the area ([0099]).
With respect to claim 5, Kim teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the object enters or moves silently. However, Fig 13 shows intrusion by a burglar which one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would recognize as a silent entry. It further teaches detection of a change in temperature or gas leakages which would both be silent movement ([0164]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Kim with a silent movement of an object because it would allow for the detection of potential hazards which cannot be heard.
With respect to claim 6, Kim teaches the multiple sound sources comprise N speakers ([0064], line 5) the multiple acoustic sensors comprise M microphones ([0068], line 5).
With respect to claim 7, Kim teaches the multiple sound sources generate multiple tones such that the i-th source emits Kᵢ tones at frequencies fᵢ₁, fᵢ₂, fiki ([0074], lines 7-9; [0075], lines 5-8).
With respect to claim 8, Kim teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach each individual sensor of the multiple acoustic sensors sense tone signals from all the multiple sound sources in the area. Kim teaches using multiple receivers in the area [0068], and the detection of acoustic signals in the acoustic receiving unit which may include a plurality of microphones ([0096], lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Kim to have each individual sensor of the multiple acoustic sensors sense tone signals from all of the multiple sound signals in the area since such a modification would have improved data for better accuracy.
With respect to claim 9, Kim teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the determined phase differences includes analyzing relative phase change features from statistics of the relative phase change.
Yokev teaches the determined phase differences includes analyzing relative phase change features from statistics of the relative phase change (Col 4, lines 50-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Kim with the relative phase change analysis of Yokev since such a modification would have improved accuracy.
With respect to claim 10, Kim teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach pre-calibrating the area by positioning an object to be detected in the area while the multiple acoustic sensors sense a relative corresponding phase vector (φ(p₀)), or its features.
Yokev teaches pre-calibrating the area by positioning an object to be detected in the area while the multiple acoustic sensors sense a relative corresponding phase vector (φ(p₀)), or its features (Col 5, lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Kim with the pre-calibration of Yokev since such a modification would have improved accuracy.
With respect to claim 11, Kim teaches a relationship between a silent object
and a delay between sensor pairs is established by artificial intelligence (AI) in which a pre-calibration dataset is used as training data for a machine-learning model such as a deep neural network (DNN) or a convolutional neural network (CNN) ([0066], lines 1-3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yokev, and further in view of Liu (WO 2022/159549).
With respect to claim 12, Kim as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the multiple acoustic sensors are part of a DFOS optical fiber.
Liu teaches multiple acoustic sensors are part of a DFOS optical fiber ([0024], lines 4-7; Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Kim with the fiber optic microphones of Liu since such a modification would have provided a low cost and reliable system.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights