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 19-20 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.
Claims 19-20 recite “obtaining, by a processing system including a processor and a first time, first data describing a first item lacking electronic capabilities.” It is unclear how a first time is obtaining first data. Please clarify these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champy (US 2019/0026066) in view of Jamieson (US 2023/0064906).
Regarding Claim 1, Champy disclose a device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor (Page 4, paragraph 0039); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Page 4, paragraph 0040) the operations comprising:
obtaining first data about a first item that lacks electronic capabilities (Page 6, paragraph 0058);
storing, based on the first data, a representation of the first item, resulting in a first stored representation of the first item (Page 6, paragraph 0058);
obtaining second data (Page 6, paragraph 0056);
comparing the second data to at least the first stored representation of the first item (Page 6, paragraph 0058);
determining, based on the comparing, that the second data corresponds to the representation of the first item within a threshold, resulting in a first determination (Page 8, paragraph 0069); and
transmitting, based on the first determination, first information regarding the first item (Page 8, paragraph 0069).
Champy does not explicitly disclose describing.
Jamieson discloses obtaining first data describing a first item that lacks electronic capabilities (Page 3, paragraph 0026). Therefore, it would have been one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Champy to include the missing limitations as taught by Jamieson in order to help deaf and hard of hearing people (Page 1, paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Jamieson.
Regarding Claim 2, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Champy discloses obtaining a request, wherein the transmitting is based on the obtaining of the request (Figure 5, Page 8, paragraph 0069-0070).
Regarding Claim 3, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Champy discloses wherein the first data about an appearance of the first item (paragraph 0022, 0024, 0067 – baby/ or pet). The combination does not explicitly disclose describing an appearance. Official notice is taken that it is notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include that an appearance of an item would include a label or descriptor or indicator so that it is easy to determine or search when making the comparison.
Regarding Claim 4, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Jamieson discloses wherein the first data describes a sound made by the first item (page 3, paragraph 0026). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 5, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Champy discloses wherein the first data describes a motion or a movement of the first item (the motion of dog scratching furniture or kids playing – paragraph 0022, 0024, 0067).
Regarding Claim 6, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Jamieson discloses wherein the obtaining of the first data comprises obtaining the first data from a user equipment (page 3, paragraph 0026). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 7, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 6. Champy discloses wherein the transmitting of the first information comprises transmitting the first information to the user equipment (Page 8, paragraph 0069-0070).
Regarding Claim 8, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Champy discloses wherein the first information includes an identifier of the first item and an identifier of a location of the first item, and wherein the identifier of the first item is based on a user-generated input (Page 2, paragraph 0022, query of what the baby or dog is doing and saying providing information of the particular room).
Regarding Claim 9, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 8. Champy discloses wherein the first information includes a portion of the first data, a portion of the second data, or a combination thereof (Page 2, paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 13, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Champy discloses wherein the obtaining of the second data includes obtaining the second data from at least one sensor (Page 3, paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 11, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. Champy discloses wherein the at least one sensor includes a camera, a microphone, or a combination thereof (Page 3, paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 12, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. Champy disclose wherein the operations further comprise: processing the first data to generate third data that is different from the first data, wherein the representation of the first item is based on the third data (Page 6, paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 13, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Champy discloses wherein the first item is one of a person, an animal, or an object (Page 2, paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 15, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Champy discloses wherein the representation of the first item includes an image fingerprint of the first item, a video fingerprint of the first item, an audio fingerprint of the first item, or any combination thereof (Page 6, paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 16, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Jamieson discloses wherein the operations further comprise: storing, based on the first determination, an indication of a characteristic of the first item referenced in the second data against a profile of the first item (Page 3, paragraph 0026, indicator).
Regarding Claim 17, Champy discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data from at least one sensor (Page 6, paragraph 0058);
comparing the first data to respective representations of items stored in a database, wherein each of the items lacks electronic capabilities (Page 6, paragraph 0058, Page 8, paragraph 0069);
determining, based on the comparing, that the first data matches a representation included in the representations of the items, resulting in a first determination (Page 6, paragraph 0058); and
based on the first determination, storing at least a portion of the first data in the database for an item included in the items, the item corresponding to the representation (Page 8, paragraph 0069).
Champy does not explicitly disclose describing, storing the data as part of profile and updating the profile.
Jamieson discloses obtaining first data from at least one sensor (page 3, paragraph 0026); obtaining, by a processing system including a processor and a first time, first data describing a first item lacking electronic capabilities (Page 3, paragraph 0026, indicators, labels, tags and descriptors); storing, by the processing system, the first data as part of a profile associated with the first item (Page 3, paragraph 0026, indicators labels, tags and descriptors); obtaining, by the processing system, second data describing a second item at a second time that is subsequent to the first time (Page 3, paragraph 0026, indicators labels, tags and descriptors); updating, by the processing system and based on the determination, the profile (Page 3, paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Champy to include the missing limitations as taught by Jamieson in order to help deaf and hard of hearing people (Page 1, paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Jamieson.
Regarding Claim 18, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 17. Champy discloses wherein the representation is based on second data associated with the item, wherein the second data is obtained from a user equipment prior to the obtaining of the first data from the at least one sensor (Page 6, paragraph 0058.
Regarding Claim 19, Champy discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system including a processor and a first time, first data about a first item lacking electronic capabilities (Page 6, paragraph 0058);
storing, by the processing system, the first data in a database associated with the first item (Page 6, paragraph 0058);
obtaining, by the processing system, second data about a second item at a second time that is subsequent to the first time (Page 6, paragraph 0058);
determining, by the processing system, that the second data matches the first data within a threshold, resulting in a determination that the first item and the second item are a same item ( Page 8, paragraph 0069, 0070),
updating, by the processing system and based on the determination, the database (Page 6, paragraph 0058, Page 8, paragraph 0069); and
transmitting, by the processing system and based on the determination, information related to the same item ( Page 8, paragraph 0069, 0070).
Champy does not explicitly disclose describing, storing the data as part of profile and updating the profile.
Jamieson discloses obtaining, by a processing system including a processor and a first time, first data describing a first item lacking electronic capabilities (Page 3, paragraph 0026, indicators, labels, tags and descriptors); storing, by the processing system, the first data as part of a profile associated with the first item (Page 3, paragraph 0026, indicators labels, tags and descriptors); obtaining, by the processing system, second data describing a second item at a second time that is subsequent to the first time (Page 3, paragraph 0026, indicators labels, tags and descriptors); updating, by the processing system and based on the determination, the profile (Page 3, paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Champy to include the missing limitations as taught by Jamieson in order to help deaf and hard of hearing people (Page 1, paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Jamieson.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champy in view of Jamieson as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of McLachlan et al (US 2023/0262412 and hereafter referred to as “Mclachlan”).
Regarding Claim 20, Champy and Jamieson disclose all the limitations of Claim 19. Jamieson discloses wherein the determining is based on a use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0026), and sends information about the event (paragraph 0022, 0024, 0069) but does not disclose wherein the information includes an advertisement. Mclachlan discloses determining objects and triggering information, wherein the information includes an advertisement (paragraph 0043, 0008). Therefore, it would have been one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Mclachlan in order to determine the mood of objects recognized (Page 1, paragraph 0008) as disclosed by Mclachlan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
June 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights