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 Interpretation
The preamble of claim 1 recites a "soundbar for monitoring a user's environment with enhanced privacy." Under MPEP 2111.02, a preamble limits a claim only when it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim; a preamble reciting only a name for the device or an intended use generally is not limiting. The term "soundbar" is not entitled to patentable weight. It names the device/form factor and states an intended use ("for monitoring... with enhanced privacy"), but the body of the claim recites a structurally complete device (a speaker, a position sensor, a camera, and one or more hardware processors) that does not rely on the preamble for antecedent basis or completeness. The only audio structure the body requires is "a speaker configured to emit audio," which a soundbar is a species of. Accordingly, the prior art need not separately disclose a "soundbar"; it need only disclose the structure recited in the body. Alternatively, were the term held limiting, housing the device's speaker, camera, and microphone in a soundbar form factor would have been an implementation detail, as such audio-bar devices integrating a camera and microphone were well known.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a soundbar for monitoring a user's environment with enhanced privacy, comprising:
a speaker configured to emit audio (Shin discloses a stationary smart-home/home-assistant device having a housing containing a speaker and a microphone (Shin [0003], [0026], [0032]; speaker 217, microphone 218). This meets "a speaker configured to emit audio.");
a position sensor configured to monitor an environment with microwave radiation and generate position data of the environment responsive to detecting the microwave radiation (Shin discloses a monolithic radar integrated circuit that emits radar "at greater than 40 GHz" ([0003]), e.g., around 60 GHz and between 40–100 GHz / 50–120 GHz ([0027]), emitting "electromagnetic radiation (also referred to as 'radio waves')" into the environment and receiving reflected waves ([0017], [0027]). Radar in this band is microwave-band radiation, consistent with the application's own definition of the position sensor as a UWB/mmWave sensor (spec [0073]). The processing system produces and analyzes the reflected-waveform data to track the moving person's center-of-mass position within the environment ([0018], [0040]–[0042], [0044]). This is "position data... responsive to detecting the microwave radiation.");
one or more hardware processors (Shin discloses a "processing system, comprising one or more processors" in communication with the radar IC ([0003]; processing module 210, [0026]), which "may include one or more special-purpose or general-purpose processors," e.g., ASICs, FPGAs, or general-purpose processors executing special-purpose software ([0034]). These processors are configured to receive and process the waveform data, determine that a fall has occurred, and output the resulting indication/alert ([0003], [0043]–[0049], [0091]), meeting "one or more hardware processors configured to." ) configured to:
access position data originating from the position sensor indicating a position of a user within the environment (Shin's processing system tracks the location/center-of-mass of the person within the field of view ([0040]–[0042], [0087]) and assumes the tracked moving object is the monitored person ([0020]).);
in response to determining from the position data that an adverse event has occurred in the environment corresponding to physiological distress of the user (Shin analyzes the center-of-mass tracklet with a pre-trained machine-learning model to determine that a fall by a person has occurred ([0003], [0018], [0043]–[0049], [0088]–[0089]).); and
generate an audible alert from the speaker (On detecting a fall, Shin's device outputs audible speech via the speaker, e.g., "I have detected a fall. Do you need help?" ([0019], [0091]).).
However, Shin does not expressly disclose "a camera configured to generate image data of an environment, the camera configured to transition between a monitor mode and a standby mode"; and "transition the camera from the standby mode to the monitor mode to monitor the environment based on determining that a safety of the user during the adverse event outweighs a privacy of the user; communicate the image data to a remote computing device"
Wakeyama discloses a battery-powered monitoring camera that supplies the camera limitations missing from Shin. The camera operates in two modes: a "sleep mode," in which the camera does not image, in order to suppress power consumption, and a "standby mode," in which the camera is operable and captures images ([0026], [0030]–[0034]). The camera transitions from the dormant sleep mode to the imaging standby mode in response to a sensor detecting a person or motion in the imaging area ([0035], [0090], [0118]). The captured images are then transmitted to a master device (access point), which in turn transmits them to a remote mobile communication terminal (smartphone) for display to the user ([0006], [0072], [0121]). Wakeyama's two-mode camera and its event-triggered transition between a non-imaging mode and an imaging mode meet "a camera configured to transition between a monitor mode and a standby mode" and the act of "transition[ing] the camera from the standby mode to the monitor mode," and Wakeyama's transmission of the captured images to the remote terminal meets "communicate the image data to a remote computing device." The claim's "standby mode" (dormant; spec [0112]) corresponds to Wakeyama's "sleep mode," and the claim's "monitor mode" (imaging) corresponds to Wakeyama's "standby mode"; the Examiner relies on Wakeyama's disclosed function, not its labels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Wakeyama's dormant-until-event camera (which activates upon a detected event and transmits captured images to a remote device, Wakeyama [0035], [0121]) into the camera Shin already contemplates including in its device (Shin [0020], [0064]), and to configure that camera to transition from its non-imaging mode to its imaging mode upon Shin's radar-detected fall, because doing so would provide visual confirmation of the radar-detected fall and convey the user's condition to the emergency contact Shin already alerts (Shin [0019], [0093]–[0094]), while Wakeyama's sleep mode would conserve power and avoid continuous optical surveillance during normal operation — directly satisfying the camera-privacy concern Shin expressly articulates (Shin [0002], [0015], [0020]); the resulting configuration, in which the camera stays dormant for privacy and is escalated to active imaging and remote image transmission only upon a safety-critical fall, is precisely the claimed determination that the user's safety during the adverse event outweighs the user's privacy, and represents nothing more than the use of a known technique (event-triggered camera activation with remote image transmission, Wakeyama) to improve a similar device (radar fall monitor, Shin) to yield predictable results, supported by Shin's own suggestion that the device may include an optical camera (Shin [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, wherein the adverse event is a user fall (Shin's processing system processes the radar waveform data and analyzes the tracked center-of-mass with a pre-trained machine-learning model "to determine that a fall by a person has occurred" (Shin [0003], [0018], [0043]–[0049], [0088]–[0089]), and Shin's device is titled and directed to radar-based fall detection (Shin [0015]–[0019]).).
Regarding claim 4, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to generate a notification that additional monitoring will commence in response to determining from the position data that the adverse event has occurred (Shin generates an audible notification in response to determining a fall from the position data — e.g., "I have detected a fall. Do you need help?" (Shin [0019], [0091]) — and the combination causes the camera to begin additional monitoring in response to that same event (Wakeyama [0035], as applied to claim 1). Shin does not expressly state that this notification announces that additional monitoring will commence. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure Shin's event-triggered announcement to state that the additional camera monitoring will begin, as a predictable adaptation of an announcement Shin already makes to reflect the action the combination already takes, and in order to inform the user before image capture and thereby preserve privacy — the same interest motivating the claim 1 combination (Shin [0002], [0015], [0020]).).
Regarding claim 5, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to transition the camera to the monitor mode by at least powering on the camera (Wakeyama further teaches that this transition is performed by at least powering on the camera: in Wakeyama's sleep mode (the claim's standby mode), operation of the camera's parts other than the infrared sensor is temporarily stopped to save power, and transitioning to its standby mode (the claim's monitor mode) renders those camera parts operable to capture images (Wakeyama [0026], [0034]–[0035]). Powering the previously-stopped camera components back to an operable, imaging state is "transition the camera to the monitor mode by at least powering on the camera," as recited. The rationale for combining Wakeyama with Shin is the same as set forth for claim 1.).
Regarding claim 12, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, further comprising a microphone, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to: access audio data originating from the microphone; and determine that the adverse event has occurred from the audio data in combination with the position data (Shin further discloses the added limitation of claim 12. Shin's device includes a microphone within the housing (Shin [0026], [0032]; microphone 218). Upon the radar position data indicating a fall, the device outputs an audible query (e.g., "I have detected a fall. Do you need help?") and the processors access the user's spoken response captured by the microphone — i.e., audio data — and determine, from that audio data in combination with the radar position data, that a help-requiring adverse event has occurred: if the audio response indicates the user is "OK," no further action is taken, whereas if the audio response indicates help is needed (or no response is received within a predefined time), the device determines the adverse event warrants intervention and alerts one or more emergency contacts (Shin [0019], [0091]–[0094]). The adverse-event determination is thus made from the audio data in combination with the position data, as recited.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above. Claim 14 is directed to a method reciting steps/functions corresponding to the system functions and operations of claim 1, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Shin in view of Wakeyama that render claim 1 unpatentable likewise apply to claim 14.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 4 above. Claim 15 is directed to a method reciting steps/functions corresponding to the system functions and operations of claim 4, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Shin in view of Wakeyama that render claim 4 unpatentable likewise apply to claim 15.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above. Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations corresponding to the system functions and operations of claim 1, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Shin further discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media element, in that Shin's device includes one or more hardware processors and associated memory executing stored instructions to carry out the recited operations (Shin [0003], [0026], [0034]). Accordingly, the teachings of Shin in view of Wakeyama that render claim 1 unpatentable likewise apply to claim 18.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 4 above. Claim 19 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable media reciting operations corresponding to the system functions and operations of claim 4, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Shin in view of Wakeyama that render claim 4 unpatentable likewise apply to claim 19.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0218224 A1; Shin '224).
Regarding claim 3, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the adverse event is a change in breathing patterns of the user.
Shin '224 teaches a smart-home device whose low-power ~60 GHz FMCW radar measures the user's breathing rate from chest-motion phase shifts (Shin '224 [0018], [0026], [0049]), and that identifies an abnormal/concerning breathing condition — including sleep apnea and breathing rates outside an expected range — and notifies the user or a medical professional in response (Shin '224 [0028]–[0029], [0048]). Such detection of an abnormal change in breathing, derived from the same radar/microwave data relied on in claim 1, is the recited "change in breathing patterns of the user" treated as an adverse event.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the Shin/Wakeyama device to treat a change in the user's breathing patterns (e.g., apnea) as the adverse event, in addition to or in place of a fall, in order to broaden the range of physiological distress events the device detects and responds to. The combination merely adds a known radar respiration-monitoring capability (Shin '224 ) to a similar radar distress-monitoring device (Shin) to yield the predictable result of detecting a respiratory adverse event, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Freeman (US 7,088,387 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, further comprising a buffer configured to store image data from the camera as non-persistent data (Wakeyama video memory 315 / storage 303 temporarily buffers the captured video for a certain period, e.g., approximately 5 seconds, after which the buffering is limited by the buffer's capacity (Wakeyama [0055], [0073]).), but the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to transition the camera to the monitor mode by at least changing a length of time the image data persists in the buffer before being deleted.
Freeman discloses a camera whose image frames are written successively into a circular buffer that, in normal operation absent a trigger event, continuously overwrites (i.e., deletes) the oldest stored frame with each newly received frame — storing the image data non-persistently (Freeman, col 1 ln 64 — col 2 ln 17; col 6 ln 5-20: the device "continues to store captured frame data in successive locations of the circular buffer, overwriting previously received frame data"). Upon detection of a trigger event, Freeman changes the buffer's operation so the buffered frames are no longer overwritten — the tail pointer ceases to increment, a predetermined number of additional frames are stored, and further overwriting then ceases, preserving the image data from before and after the event rather than deleting it (Freeman, col 2 ln 38-53; col 6 ln 60 — col 7 ln 5, col 7 ln 24-40: "Upon detection of a trigger event, the tail pointer ceases to increment... No subsequent frames are stored... further image capture and storage would cease"). Changing the buffer from continuously overwriting/deleting the image data to preserving it upon the event is "changing a length of time the image data persists in the buffer before being deleted," as recited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the camera buffer of the Shin/Wakeyama device, upon the radar-detected adverse event, to change the buffered image data's retention as taught by Freeman, in order to preserve the image data captured immediately before and during the adverse event for verification and review of that event — the same fall verification and remote review purpose Shin already serves (Shin [0019], [0093]–[0094]) — with a reasonable expectation of success, as Freeman applies the same event-triggered circular-buffer technique to camera image data.
Regarding claim 8, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the image data includes data generated by the camera before and/or during the adverse event when the camera is in the standby mode, wherein the image data is stored in a buffer as non-persistent data during the standby mode.
Freeman discloses a camera that, during normal pre-event operation, continually captures successive video frames and writes them into a circular buffer organized as a continuous loop that overwrites the oldest frame with each newly received frame — storing the captured image data as non-persistent data (Freeman, Abstract ("recording video images before and after a triggering event"); col 1 ln 64 — col 2 ln 17; col 3 ln 33-54, col 6 ln 5-20: the device "continues to store captured frame data in successive locations of the circular buffer, overwriting previously received frame data"). Because the buffer continuously captures and retains the most recent frames before any trigger occurs, upon detection of the triggering event the buffered image data provides a record of the images generated before, as well as during and after, the event (Freeman, col 2 ln 38-53; col 6 ln 41 — col 7 ln 5). In the combination, this continuous pre-event capture and non-persistent buffering occurs while the camera is in the standby mode — i.e., before the radar-detected adverse event transitions the camera to the monitor mode — so that the image data includes data generated by the camera before and/or during the adverse event, stored in a buffer as non-persistent data during the standby mode, as recited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the camera of the Shin/Wakeyama device to continuously capture and non-persistently buffer image data during its standby mode, as taught by Freeman, in order to make available a record of the image data from immediately before and during the adverse event for verification and review — Freeman's express pre-event recording purpose (Freeman, col 1 ln 19-31) — which serves Shin's existing fall verification and remote review objective (Shin [0019], [0093]–[0094]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Freeman applies continuous pre-event circular buffering to camera image data.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Freeman (US 7,088,387 B1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 6 above. Claim 16 is directed to a method reciting steps/functions corresponding to the system functions and operations of claim 6, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Shin in view of Wakeyama, and further in view of Freeman that render claim 6 unpatentable likewise apply to claim 16.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Freeman (US 7,088,387 B1), for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 6 above. Claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable media reciting operations corresponding to the system functions and operations of claim 6, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Shin in view of Wakeyama, further in view of Freeman, that render claim 6 unpatentable likewise apply to claim 20.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Lambert (US 6,421,080 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, further comprising a buffer configured to store image data from the camera as non-persistent data (Wakeyama video memory 315 / storage 303 temporarily buffers the captured video for a certain period, e.g., approximately 5 seconds, after which the buffering is limited by the buffer's capacity (Wakeyama [0055], [0073]).), but the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to transition the camera to the monitor mode by at least storing the image data from the buffer in long term memory as persistent data.
Lambert discloses an image recording system that continuously records captured camera images into a temporary storage device — a cache memory 32 in RAM 20 — as non-persistent data, the oldest images being automatically overwritten when the cache fills and any image not recorded to long-term storage ultimately being written over (Lambert, col 2 ln 64 — col 3 ln 3: "the oldest video images in the temporary storage device are automatically overwritten when the storage capacity is filled"; col 4 ln 7-26: "Image data that is not recorded to long-term storage is ultimately written over by subsequent image data"). In response to a triggering event, the system subsequently records the temporarily-stored (buffered) image data into a long-term storage device — a hard drive 22 / disk drive 26 — for later retrieval (Lambert, col 1 ln 54-63, col 2 ln 1-19; col 4 ln 27-40: "captured and compressed images are continually recorded into the temporary memory, and subsequently stored are selectively recorded into long-term storage only upon detecting a triggering event"; col 4 ln 41-51: "The image data stored in the temporary memory just prior to detection of a triggering event qualifies as pre-event activity, and will be copied to the long-term memory"). Lambert's triggering events include output signals from motion sensors and security alarms (Lambert, col 4 ln 27-40). Copying the buffered image data from the non-persistent temporary cache into long-term disk storage for later retrieval is "storing the image data from the buffer in long term memory as persistent data," as recited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the Shin/Wakeyama device, upon the radar detected adverse event, to store the buffered camera image data into long-term persistent memory as taught by Lambert, in order to preserve the image data captured immediately before and during the adverse event for later retrieval and review of that event — the same fall verification and remote review purpose Shin already serves (Shin [0019], [0093]–[0094]) — with a reasonable expectation of success, as Lambert applies the same event-triggered technique of transferring buffered camera images to long-term storage.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Gagvani (US 2015/0098613 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to verify that the adverse event has occurred from the image data generated by the camera.
Gagvani discloses a processor P, coupled to a camera and to an alarm sensor, that receives an event trigger generated by the sensor, receives video/image data from the camera, and applies video analytics to that image data to confirm or deny — i.e., to verify — that the event has in fact occurred before generating an alert (Gagvani [0018]; [0020]: receiving the sensor alarm signal (step 110), receiving the camera video data (step 120), analyzing the video data (step 130), and using the analysis results to determine whether the alarm is verified (step 140) before an alert is generated (step 150), the processing otherwise stopping; [0033]: hierarchical video analysis to "verify and classify an alarm event"). Gagvani performs this image-based verification specifically to reduce false alarms — providing "a security system that can verify alarm conditions before alerting a user" and an "automated verification technique" (Gagvani [0005]–[0006], [0008]). Configuring a processor to confirm a sensor detected event from the camera image data in this manner is "verify that the adverse event has occurred from the image data generated by the camera," as recited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the processor of the Shin/Wakeyama device to verify, from the camera image data, that the radar detected adverse event has in fact occurred, as taught by Gagvani, before escalating the response. Shin detects the adverse event via radar and, in response, alerts emergency contacts (Shin [0019], [0093]–[0094]); applying Gagvani's known image-based verification technique to confirm the event before alerting would predictably reduce false alarms and avoid unnecessary emergency dispatch — a recognized benefit that directly serves Shin's existing alerting purpose — with a reasonable expectation of success, as Gagvani applies the same technique (camera image analysis to confirm a sensor detected event) to the same kind of sensor triggered, camera equipped monitoring system. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Cuddihy (US 2013/0002434 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to determine the adverse event has occurred if a condition in the position data persists for longer than a threshold time.
Cuddihy teaches in a radar-based fall detector, the processing unit identifies the subject as a fallen person — and generates an alert — only where the radar detected fallen position condition (physiological/motion parameters below the reference line, proximate the floor) persists for more than a determined duration of time, e.g., 90 seconds, corresponding to a "recovery time during which the person may get up subsequent to a fall," and does not alert if the person returns to a low-risk position within that time (Cuddihy [0048]–[0049], [0066], [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to gate the Shin/Wakeyama device's fall determination on the position-data condition persisting beyond a threshold time, as taught by Cuddihy. Shin already analyzes radar/position data to determine a fall before escalating to emergency contacts and values accurate determination before alerting (Shin [0046]–[0049], [0093]–[0094]); applying Cuddihy's recovery time persistence gate predictably suppresses transient false positives (e.g., a brief low posture from which the person promptly rises) and avoids unnecessary escalation — the same false positive reduction benefit Cuddihy identifies — with a reasonable expectation of success, both references determining a person's fall from radar position data.
Claim(s) 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Sloo (US 2015/0097683 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising an environment sensor, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to: access user agnostic data originating from the environment sensor, said user agnostic data including one or more of environment temperature data, ambient light data, or air quality data; and determine that the adverse event has occurred from the user agnostic data in combination with the position data.
Sloo teaches a smart home safety device carrying an ambient environment sensor suite — temperature, ambient light, and air-quality (smoke/CO/radon) sensors — plus an occupancy/motion sensor and processor (Sloo [0035], [0047], [0049]), and determining that a user endangering event has occurred from the user agnostic hazard data (e.g., smoke/CO level, [0009], [0056]) in combination with the user's location/presence data — e.g., reporting that occupants are present and endangered and which rooms they occupy (Sloo [0010], [0014], [0059]–[0060]; harm-to-user context [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the Shin/Wakeyama soundbar with Sloo's ambient environment sensor and to determine the adverse event from that user agnostic data together with Shin's radar position data. Shin is a smart home safety monitor that escalates to emergency contacts on a position data detected distress event (Shin [0019], [0093]–[0094]); adding Sloo's ambient hazard sensing and fusing it with the user's radar derived presence predictably broadens coverage to environmental emergencies and confirms the user is present and endangered before escalating — the use of a known sensor fusion technique (Sloo) to improve an analogous radar safety monitor (Shin) for predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Sloo (US 2015/0097683 A1), for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 11 above. Claim 17 is directed to a method reciting steps/functions corresponding to the system functions and operations of claim 11, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Shin in view of Wakeyama, further in view of Sloo, that render claim 11 unpatentable likewise apply to claim 17.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2023/0018686 A1) in view of Wakeyama (US 2019/0104283 A1), and further in view of Tran (US 2013/0095459 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Shin in view of Wakeyama discloses the soundbar of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to: access physiological data originating from a user device connected to the user; and determine that the adverse event has occurred from the physiological data in combination with the position data.
Tran teaches a home health-monitoring system in which the user wears a mobile appliance (wrist-watch or clip-on device) carrying sensors that generate the user's physiological data — ECG/EKG, blood pressure, heart rate, and pulse oximetry — and transmit it over an RF/mesh link to the system's processor/base station (Tran [0011], [0048], [0051]). Tran further teaches determining that an adverse event warranting assistance has occurred from that physiological data in combination with the user's position data: the system determines whether the user needs assistance based on indoor position, fall detection, and vital-parameter inputs together (Tran [0218], step 1008), and expressly teaches that multiple parameters — naming fall detection, positioning data, and blood pressure — can be analyzed simultaneously to generate an alert (Tran [0200]; see also [0057], [0201]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the Shin/Wakeyama soundbar to access physiological data from such a user worn monitor and to determine the adverse event from that physiological data in combination with Shin's radar position data. Doing so applies Tran's known sensor fusion technique to an analogous radar-based safety monitor (Shin) to predictably improve the reliability and richness of distress detection — corroborating radar detected events and capturing dangerous physiological conditions that position data alone may miss — with a reasonable expectation of success. Shin's use of radar to avoid requiring a worn device for baseline coverage does not teach away from this combination: Shin's radar continues to provide baseline coverage with nothing worn, and the supplemental worn monitor merely adds corroborating physiological data when the user has one, consistent with Shin's purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights